Review: 75355 X-wing Starfighter
Posted by CapnRex101,
7191 X-wing Fighter was introduced in 2000 and initiated the popular Ultimate Collector Series range, reflecting the unrivalled status of the T-65 X-wing Starfighter. Furthermore, the vehicle was revisited with 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter, thirteen years later.
75355 X-wing Starfighter therefore presents the third large-scale rendition of this classic space superiority fighter, hopefully improving upon the weaknesses of its predecessors. The general shape certainly looks impressive and there are significant updates, although whether these are actually worthwhile remains to be seen.
Summary
75355 X-wing Starfighter, 1,949 pieces.
£209.99 / $239.99 / €239.99 | 10.8p/12.3c/12.3c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
Imperfections remain, but the celebrated X-wing starfighter has never looked better
- Extremely accurate shape
- Superb exterior detail
- Successful functions
- R2-D2 is undersized
- Unsightly Technic pieces
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
Box and Contents
18+ branding lends the packaging for Ultimate Collector Series sets a welcome consistency and the dark backdrop suits the X-wing beautifully, accompanied by the glow of distant stars. These are reminiscent of designs on the box for 7191 X-wing Fighter, while the position of the vessel is essentially identical as well.
Such similarities are appropriate, as 75355 X-wing Starfighter and its equivalent from 2000 were both designed by Henrik Andersen, which the instruction manual highlights. A small sticker sheet is supplied to decorate the S-foils and the cockpit interior, although fortunately not the canopy on this occasion, which is printed! Additionally, the information plaque is printed for the first time.
Minifigures
Luke Skywalker has appeared in countless Star Wars sets, regularly wearing his Rebel Alliance flight uniform. This minifigure greatly improves upon its predecessors though, with dual-moulded legs representing boots and exclusive printed arms. They pair nicely with the already-impressive torso, which includes a flak vest alongside a breathing hose that continues onto the hips.
The decoration on the legs has been marginally adjusted to accommodate the boots, which look superb. I like the flares around Luke's right leg in particular, corresponding with the movies. This helmet has appeared several times before, but displays accurate stripes and symbols, while the double-sided head is also unchanged from its introduction four years ago.
One side features the visor lowered and the other raised, with different expressions as well. The arms, meanwhile, include pockets for data cylinders and other equipment, so look perfect. Luke carries a blue lightsaber, which was perhaps unnecessary here, but is welcome nonetheless, as ever.
75339 Death Star Trash Compactor introduced a new version of R2-D2, finally adding panels to the back of this beloved Astromech droid. The improved Artoo returns here, presenting accurate white, dark blue and metallic silver details around the cylindrical body. Hopefully this figure soon becomes the common design, appearing in smaller and more affordable sets.
Moreover, the pearl silver dome looks marvellous, featuring pink accents alongside the standard dark blue patterns. Unlike the body, R2-D2's head originally appeared in 2020 and has remained the same since. Unfortunately, the printing is not always positioned evenly around the dome, but this example looks good.
Reference
Source - starwars.fandom.com
The Completed Model
Star Wars vehicles are often lauded for their strong geometric shapes and simple shapes, which the T-65 X-wing Starfighter exemplifies. Despite such simplicity, LEGO has sometimes struggled to capture the shape accurately, most notably in relation to the hexagonal fuselage. This version of the X-wing has evidently prioritised that feature, so differs remarkably from earlier designs.
The scale was a particular surprise. 75355 X-wing Starfighter measures 56cm in length, which is noticeably larger than the 52cm-long 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter. Furthermore, the nose of the 2023 design is bulkier and the whole vehicle appears generally cleaner, with more defined sections of dark red, tan and grey than before.
However, while the nose appears bulkier on 75355 X-wing Starfighter, the fuselage is somewhat narrower towards the rear. Once again, the modern X-wing features cleaner lines, uninterrupted by changing angles. These differences are further highlighted by the updated proportions of the engines, which have grown substantially between the 2013 rendition and its successor.
The display stand is unusual. Rather than matching others in modern Ultimate Collector Series sets, which generally include curved slopes around the base, this example recreates the display stand beneath 7191 X-wing Fighter. The angular shape and dark bluish grey plates are certainly familiar from the beginning of the Ultimate Collector Series, which is quite a nice homage.
In fact, the only obvious differences are the additional space for Luke Skywalker to stand in front of the plaque, as well as the plaque itself. Instead of requiring an enormous sticker, this 8x16 tile is actually printed, finally! The mould mark in the centre is conspicuous when viewed closely, but this remains a welcome update. Of course, no plaque would be complete without a tiny error, as the hyperdrive motivator should be plural.
As usual, the display stand slides into a square hole on the underside of the X-wing, which feels secure because the hole is very deep. However, the 2x2 curved slope and 2x2 inverted curved slope placed underneath tend to detach under significant pressure, which is apparently an issue the designers are looking to resolve, without the need for additional parts.
This model of the X-wing starfighter lacks landing gear, although it could be easily presented on a surface with a couple of bricks under the nose, as shown below. The display stand is definitely preferable though, especially because the starfighter can be attached in four directions. I think it looks fantastic when angled to one side, as though passing through the Death Star trench.
Panels replace the bricks used on previous X-wing starfighters at this scale, achieving far better accuracy along the nose. Beyond the hexagonal shape, this combination of white, dark red and tan bodywork seems tidier than was possible before, avoiding the needless bands of light bluish grey plates. The shape of the nose-cone is more accurate as well, even capturing the recessed sensor window.
Introducing the panels has not solved every issue though. There are some gaps as the fuselage narrows towards the nose, where the seams are noticeable. Also, the odd concentration of studs around the cockpit could have been avoided. Some exposed studs are good, but I think several should have been swapped for tiles. The proton torpedo tubes, on the other hand, look superb.
Surprisingly, the sides of the fuselage are only connected using two clips, positioned beside the cockpit. Technic pieces are strategically placed to maintain its shape though, before trans-clear 1x2 plates with bars slide into the nose-cone, anchoring each panel. The whole structure is very rigid thanks to its Technic core, which may also explain the absence of landing gear.
The canopy on 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter is notorious for requiring four stickers, two of which are applied across edges. Thankfully, the canopy is printed on this occasion, so the sand blue frame looks excellent. Ideally, the canopy would actually be angled to continue the profile of the nose, although doing so would massively complicate this whole section of the X-wing.
Opening the cockpit reveals a detailed interior, which includes the angular control suite. This fits neatly beneath the canopy and is cleverly combined with wedge plates on either side to produce the correct shape. Stickers form the necessary conduits and buttons, although some panels are omitted, relative to the onscreen controls.
I like the dark bluish grey 1x2 grille tiles adorning the seat, alongside an adjustable control yoke and targeting computer. The targeting computer can partially retract into the fuselage behind the seat, but looks better when extended, in my opinion. The cockpit even contains accurate pedals represented by 1x2 grille slopes, which are more visible once the armour is removed.
An Astromech droid socket is situated behind the cockpit, occupied by R2-D2. Unfortunately, the minifigure-scale droid is notably undersized, so I am surprised the 3x3 dome introduced in 2019 was not employed instead. Additionally, the visible Technic pieces between the engines and the fuselage are frustrating. These are less noticeable when the S-foils are open, but they should be hidden in either configuration.
The gap between the engines is also disappointing, as they should be almost touching when the S-foils are closed. However, the individual nacelles look excellent, including three cooling vanes in each intake. 3x3 curved panels have been developed for these engines, which look perfect. In addition, they appear versatile, so I look forward to seeing how these are used elsewhere.
Some have criticised the engines as oversized and I can understand why, given their size on the previous Ultimate Collector Series X-wings. Furthermore, their size changes between depictions of this starfighter and the engines' proportions here match their modern appearance. A variety of small pieces provide mechanical detail across the top of the fuselage, including the round shield generator.
Intricate detail continues on the back, where various dark bluish grey elements form mechanical features, around the central S-foil servo actuator. The video game controller situated underneath the actuator is effective and the designer has clearly paid close attention to the starfighter which appears onscreen. Ice skates, for example, provide accurate details towards the flanks.
Trans-pink dishes are used inside the engines, providing a lovely glow that corresponds with the movie vehicle. The 1x2 plates with clips around these dishes creates an ideal shape, identical to 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter. Accurate detail continues between the engines, where pairs of 2x3 pentagonal tiles introduce a degree of asymmetry.
The functional S-foils are essential and various mechanisms have been attempted for the many LEGO X-wing starfighters. Rather than complex gearing, this model instead incorporates a cam beneath the shield generator, which pushes down on Technic ball joints as it rotates and causes the attached S-foils to open.
Rubber bands ensure the S-foils close evenly, although the opposing pairs of wings are actually connected through the fuselage, which balances them. The vehicle released in 2013 included a similar mechanism, but this example opens much more quickly. Nevertheless, I find the previous opening function smoother and prefer its use of springs, instead of rubber bands.
Once the S-foils are deployed, I think the X-wing appears much more impressive on display. The below configuration is more visually dramatic and disguises the gaps around the engines, which is useful. In addition, the model is displayed sideways on the stand in this photo and accordingly seems more dynamic, similar to 75181 Y-wing Starfighter and 75275 A-wing Starfighter.
The wings spread to an appropriate degree, locking in position once opened, although not when closed. This reveals extensive detail on the inner surfaces, with light bluish grey plates and two stickers forming grey armour panels. Furthermore, two new elements are found on the wings, including 4x8 inverted tiles on their inner surfaces and 8x3 wedge plates forming the trailing edges.
As expected, the S-foil function leaves gaps on each side of the fuselage. They are unavoidable and these gaps are relatively small when compared with other X-wing designs. Even so, they do remain noticeable and 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter was arguably tidier, since the Technic assembly opening the wings also filled the resulting gaps.
However, this issue demonstrates another advantage of displaying the model as though flying at an angle, which covers the gaps and also obscures the Technic supports for the S-foils. Avoiding such problems altogether would be ideal, particularly in the Ultimate Collector Series, but hiding them is the best alternative.
The previous Ultimate Collector Series X-wing fighters have each required stickers to create the desired combination of panels across the S-foils. Tiles and wedge plates perform the same role for this model, including five dark red 1x2 tiles denoting Red Five. Stickers could have recreated these stripes more accurately, but the tiles suffice.
Conversely, the laser cannons have been constructed similarly since 2000. These are anchored using 2x2 angle plates and their proportions match previous sets, although alternating sand blue and white 1L Technic connectors produce a lovely striped pattern, which matches the sand blue canopy. The flashback suppressors have also been updated, now incorporating white flippers.
Overall
75355 X-wing Starfighter represents a definite improvement over its predecessors, capturing the elusive hexagonal fuselage and including greater detail than was previously possible. The whole starfighter also appears sleeker than before, with smooth lines originating behind the nose-cone and continuing to the very back. The enlarged engines are fantastic as well, taking advantage of new pieces.
Despite these qualities, absolute perfection has yet to be achieved. R2-D2 looks relatively small behind the cockpit, while the Technic structure securing the S-foils is more obvious than I would hope. Nonetheless, the T-65 X-wing starfighter has never looked better in LEGO form, while the price of £209.99, $239.99 or €239.99 also seems surprisingly fair, in my opinion.
161 likes
56 comments on this article
So it IS better than its predecessors. Although Artoo is just wow, why not use the 4x4 dome way more in scale? Play in a UCS set meant for display strikes again?
I still greatly prefer 75218, with a few mods made. But I'm also a weirdo that thinks UCS sets are silly and never buy them because they are huge and out of scale with most lego. idk
Could you show us how it looks like with tiles replacing the studs on the sides?
I can never understand why Lego does plates where tiles will do.
@ItisNoe said:
"So it IS better than its predecessors. Although Artoo is just wow, why not use the 4x4 dome way more in scale? Play in a UCS set meant for display strikes again?"
4x4 would have been way too large.
I'm glad they did tiles for the red five stripes, it allows you to easily adjust it to another one.
Overall, not a bad set at all! Don't think I'll be picking it up anytime soon though.
Agree to disagree. I don't really collect UCS sets, but I personally think the 2013 one looks a lot cleaner, especially around the nose and cockpit. Still, I think this is a decent rendition and that Luke minifigure looks so good!
Usually we're on here complaining about using stickers where brick-built details could be done, but here I think it's the opposite: building painted details instead of using a sticker to represent them actually detracts a bit! I'd rather the Red Five designation on the wings be stickered.
Artoo isn't actually that bad. He's just set so low that he looks really small. Here's a side by side comparison with the Red Leader pyro model.
https://www.reddit.com/r/legostarwars/comments/12gmqim/side_by_side_2023_ucs_xwing_and_ilm_studio_models/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I'm so glad the plaque is printed. I[m picking this set up May 1
Can you give a picture with Luke in the cockpit please?
@ItisNoe said:
"So it IS better than its predecessors. Although Artoo is just wow, why not use the 4x4 dome way more in scale? Play in a UCS set meant for display strikes again?"
Presumably because a 4x4 is too large in comparison to both the ship and to Luke (the diameter is about the height of a minifigure) and also would not be the complete droid, just the head. Some people would prefer to be able to pop R2-D2 out. If anyone wants the big dome instead, it is much easier to fill the hole and attach the dome than it is if this area was solid with a dome on top and it needed to be engineered to fit a hole into the design to fit an R2-D2 minifigure.
Scale is always a bit hard in LEGO, especially when involving humans, as scale is about 1:45 based on height, but 1:25 based on width. The ship is 13.4 m long and the model is 560 mm, which gives a scale of 1:24. R2-D2's dome is approx 48cm diameter, so at 1:24 scale should be 20mm. 2 studs is 16mm (so 2 studs is approx 1:30 scale), whereas 4 studs is 32mm (1:15 scale). So 2 studs is a little small at about 80% scale compared to the ship length. Whereas 4 studs would be 160% scale, way too big. Even 3 studs would be 24mm, too big at 120%. Ideally it should be 2.5 studs wide.
The only thing that bugs me about it is that I would like the panels on the sides of the nose/fuselage to have angled edges to create a gentle slope from the cockpit down to the nosecone. This is one of the more challenging aspects of the x-wing as Lego does not make either a wing plate or a sloping brick with a shallow enough angle. I use part no 47397 on my MOC, as Inthert did on his first two versions, but the angle is really too steep on that part. Other MOC builders, e.g. Jerac, have used a hinge plate (part no 1927) to create a shallow enough angle, and I would have though Lego could have done the same, considering that it should be even easier at a larger scale.
This is one I am seriously contemplating picking up. I don't have any UCS yet and only one MBS. Budget and space is the constraint for me, so the $400 and under sets are just about in line with where I am at the moment and even more so if I drop a VIP discount or two on one.
Those new 3x3 rounded panels in the engines could prove very useful in castle detailing, as long as they're available in cheaper sets or on Bricks and Pieces down the line.
Apart from the R2D2 being too small, I think this looks great and is a definite improvement over the one from 2013, and especially the one from 2000 (which, let's be fair, almost nobody thinks looks really good, apart from those that prefer it for nostalgia reasons).
I will probably be picking this one up on May 1st, since I do not have the two previous models. With double VIP points, and all the GWPs, I would be stupid not to, unless if I want to wait for this to become a non-exclusive in a year and somehow miraculously being sold somewhere for 20% off.
Day one buy for me. This will be my first Star Wars UCS kit.
Nailed it, the 3x3 dome would be a great size for R2.
Other than that, this seems to be an excellent rendition of an X-Wing. Great review!
Hmm, I still don't know how I feel about this one. Individually each part is definitely way more accurate than the 2013 model and pretty well done overall, it just feels off as an overall model, its hard to put my finger on.
@CapnRex101 said:
"7191 X-wing Fighter was introduced in 2000 and initiated the popular Ultimate Collector Series range"
Wasn’t 7181 Tie Interceptor the first UCS set? I thought I remember the advertisements at the time saying 7191 X-Wing would be released later in the year 2000.
Marked improvement over 10240, printed windscreen and plaque. It's not perfect, but I'm in.
@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"I can never understand why Lego does plates where tiles will do."
It is 100% branding and highlighting the unique inherent qualities of the product. If you want a perfectly smooth model, there are scale model kits for that. Many people (especially adults targeted with nostalgia play) choose Lego for its Lego-like quality and exposed studs celebrate that.
Of course you are entitled to your preference for the smooth look, but exposed studs are often deliberate and believe I have heard some designers say as such in interviews before.
It definitely gets the award for most creative use of a minifig flipper!
Boy, the size of those engines just still gets me. Comparing to images from the movies, it looks like they are indeed oversized, but I think still closer than the old size. For some reason, I think my eyes are just less sensitive to undersized engines than to oversized. Thanks for the wonderful, in-depth review. As usual, my initial impression was "eh, it's not signficantly different from the last one" but now that I've seen the review, I can see there are several real improvements. I especially like the detail they added when viewing from behind.
Now I'm on the fence with this one. I don't care for the printed plaque and prefer the gloss finish (and the covering of the mold mark) of the sticker of the previous models. Printed canopy is wonderful, but I've already got the stickers applied fine on my 10240, so that's not appealing either. But the added details on the rear, the better over-all shape of the fuselage, and the amount of detail accomplished in parts rather than stickers are all very appealing. I'll have to see what the rest of the year brings. And yes, even the price is pretty darn alright as UCS goes.
@ra226 said:
"Boy, the size of those engines just still gets me. Comparing to images from the movies, it looks like they are indeed oversized, but I think still closer than the old size. For some reason, I think my eyes are just less sensitive to undersized engines than to oversized. Thanks for the wonderful, in-depth review. As usual, my initial impression was "eh, it's not signficantly different from the last one" but now that I've seen the review, I can see there are several real improvements. I especially like the detail they added when viewing from behind.
Now I'm on the fence with this one. I don't care for the printed plaque and prefer the gloss finish (and the covering of the mold mark) of the sticker of the previous models. Printed canopy is wonderful, but I've already got the stickers applied fine on my 10240, so that's not appealing either. But the added details on the rear, the better over-all shape of the fuselage, and the amount of detail accomplished in parts rather than stickers are all very appealing. I'll have to see what the rest of the year brings. And yes, even the price is pretty darn alright as UCS goes."
Wow, I finally found a soulmate sharing my opinion about the printed plaques. Thanks :)
Call me a silly person, but I much prefer the glossy sticker look without that injection mold mark, to a printed plaque with injection mark. I know that is sacrilege in the "I am an AFOL and hate stickers" church that seems to keep growing in membership, but I still think I am right. I would rather want LEGO to print all small 1x1 and 1x2 tiles and transparent canopies and other pieces where applying a sticker is difficult to nigh impossible to get right.
@MBUK said:
" @ItisNoe said:
"So it IS better than its predecessors. Although Artoo is just wow, why not use the 4x4 dome way more in scale? Play in a UCS set meant for display strikes again?"
Presumably because a 4x4 is too large in comparison to both the ship and to Luke (the diameter is about the height of a minifigure) and also would not be the complete droid, just the head. Some people would prefer to be able to pop R2-D2 out. If anyone wants the big dome instead, it is much easier to fill the hole and attach the dome than it is if this area was solid with a dome on top and it needed to be engineered to fit a hole into the design to fit an R2-D2 minifigure.
Scale is always a bit hard in LEGO, especially when involving humans, as scale is about 1:45 based on height, but 1:25 based on width. The ship is 13.4 m long and the model is 560 mm, which gives a scale of 1:24. R2-D2's dome is approx 48cm diameter, so at 1:24 scale should be 20mm. 2 studs is 16mm (so 2 studs is approx 1:30 scale), whereas 4 studs is 32mm (1:15 scale). So 2 studs is a little small at about 80% scale compared to the ship length. Whereas 4 studs would be 160% scale, way too big. Even 3 studs would be 24mm, too big at 120%. Ideally it should be 2.5 studs wide.
"
Whoops, I meant 3x3, just didn't read enough before typing. And Brickset only let's you edit for 20ish minutes after typing, so I couldn't change it.
can I just say that that is one sweet thumbnail photo!
The proportions of this set really look wrong. I think the two biggest reasons & design problems are:
A) The lack of slope on the upper side of the nose, which makes the nose look stick-like. It slopes neatly with the canopy in the real deal.
B) The wings open too widely (due to the mechanism used) which makes the engines a lot higher and lower from where they're supposed to be when the ship is in attack mode.
Those issues make this ship look kinda goofy to me
It’s decent and I’m sure it’s the most accurate version, but it just looks off to me. XWings are always dirty. Making the nose white removes some of the ‘lived in’ look of the ship.
The nose and fuselage aren’t sleek enough, and the previous versions, particularly the 2013 version, nailed this. This one looks too bulky. Maybe with a sleeker fuselage and nose, and slightly longer wings to take account of the larger engines, it’d be the best X Wing yet.
Might buy it at some point if it is ever reduced but wont be rushing to buy it on release.
I don’t do UCS vehicle sets but X-Wing is my favourite so may get this if it’s a decent deal somewhere. Not sure of the phallus like nose and feel there is too many studs for a UCS set.
@StorzN said:
"The proportions of this set really look wrong. I think the two biggest reasons & design problems are:
A) The lack of slope on the upper side of the nose, which makes the nose look stick-like. It slopes neatly with the canopy in the real deal.
B) The wings open too widely (due to the mechanism used) which makes the engines a lot higher and lower from where they're supposed to be when the ship is in attack mode.
Those issues make this ship look kinda goofy to me"
So, the new one has giant biceps. Yet, the older one is great at chess, Lego, and is much more sensitive. Who is the better one?
Seriously, @CapnRex101, how do we not have some source material in this review? This is the way. Otherwise, the review is very thorough and well-done.
I do want to say, I'm perplexed by people saying this set has too many visible studs for a UCS set when the previous X-wing had as many as, if not more than, this one.
While the body and nose of the ship are more "accurate," I think it really comes at the expensive of the proportions. The nose of the ship is way too thick/wide.
I much prefer the previous two iterations, despite the improvements here.
@StorzN said
" B) The wings open too widely (due to the mechanism used) which makes the engines a lot higher and lower from where they're supposed to be when the ship is in attack mode. "
I wonder if the problem is related to the engines not touching when the wings are closed. I bet if they were positioned closer together when closed, your issue here would go away.
It's funny how difficult the X-Wing is to get just right. The reviewer touched on this--there are a lot of angles that need to be just right, and even a small error is very apparent to the eye. Couple that with the fact the X-Wing could possibly be -the- most recognizable spaceship ever put to film (with the possible exception of the Enterprise), and you have a very difficult design task.
@brickwich agree with you. This new model gains some and loses some. As the reviewer said, perfection still eludes us when it comes to the UCS X-Wing.
I've got 10204 so no desire to buy this one. New one looks very chunky compared to it.
I'd still rather the release new vehicles, or some of the every old ones
This is the first UCS set in along time that feels like a big miss. Honestly I'm having a hard time remembering the last rough one...
EDIT: The last miss was 75098 Assault on Hoth in 2016. Six years of good designs is a nice run.
Wings look too short and the fuselage looks too wide. Not to mention all the unsightly gaps between the wings and the fuselage. And the wings definitely open to a wider angle than they should, it's just somewhat hidden due to the shorter wings not making it obvious, but the engines become spaced too far apart, which only exacerbates the gaps.
Overall this thing's proportions are just way too far off for what I'd expect from a 3rd iteration UCS model.
I can understand the criticisms of the proportions and I would agree that they are not perfect. However, I would encourage people to examine reference images and particularly the original filming miniatures, which confirm the general accuracy of this model:
https://modelermagic.com/red-5-x-wing-studio-model/
@CapnRex101 said:
"I can understand the criticisms of the proportions and I would agree that they are not perfect. However, I would encourage people to examine reference images and particularly the original filming miniatures, which confirm the general accuracy of this model:
https://modelermagic.com/red-5-x-wing-studio-model/ "
Honestly, those pictures of the studio model only seem to further highlight just how short the wings are compared to what they should be.
I measured the studio model and ran some numbers, and the wings on the UCS set each ought to be at least 3-4 studs longer than they currently are, which match my earlier calculations I ran from the initial box art when I thought they seemed off.
I imagine the length was chosen due to the already visibly heavy weight of the current wings, but such a sizeable reduction in wing length really does compromise the overall look of the model, far moreso than any of the other issues IMO.
Luckily, extending the wings should be a fairly simple mod to do, apart from potential weight issues. It is Lego after all! :)
@MrBob Part of the issue around judging accuracy is the various angles presented as well as any variation due to the method of photography used. I’m wondering if the proportions look better in person.
On Lego’s website there’s a top-down view of the model which does a decent job of showing the shape. I think the fuselage is slightly thicker than it could be (and doesn’t taper as much, as others have noted). But X-wing… wings may be deeper (front to back) than most realize just because they aren’t usually viewed from the top down.
But like you said, it’s Lego and can easily be modified if needed.
@MrBob said:
"
I measured the studio model and ran some numbers, and the wings on the UCS set each ought to be at least 3-4 studs longer than they currently are, which match my earlier calculations I ran from the initial box art when I thought they seemed off.
I imagine the length was chosen due to the already visibly heavy weight of the current wings, but such a sizeable reduction in wing length really does compromise the overall look of the model, far moreso than any of the other issues IMO.
"
I was talking about this with my father and this was his complaint too. Honestly just extending each foil/wing two studs would do a lot. It wouldn't outright solve the intakes seeming half a stud too wide in diameter (a practically unsolvable issue) but it would make the proportions nicer.
I’m sorry but those engines still look insanely ridiculous. I appreciate LEGO trying their best with the hexagonal fuselage, but this has more wrong with it than I thought. The s-foils look droopy, the wings look too short because the engines are too large, R2 is too small, and the laser cannons still droop.
It looks cartoonish. Hard pass.
I'd love to see what it looks like with Artoo raised up a couple plates. That would be more accurate.
@CapnRex101 said:
"I can understand the criticisms of the proportions and I would agree that they are not perfect. However, I would encourage people to examine reference images and particularly the original filming miniatures, which confirm the general accuracy of this model:
https://modelermagic.com/red-5-x-wing-studio-model/ "
A man who makes a point, and cites his sources. Love to see it. Seems like a lost art these days. The rest is…just noise. Regardless, hats off to the designers for ignoring the noise and continuing to kick out good product like this set.
Nice Set - For me, if I didn't own 10240 I'd get, but I do and it's not significant enough to own 2. Also it looks fresh from the factory where the mix of colours on the previous set gave some impression of "worn". The printed canopy is a god send
"Of course, no plaque would be complete without a tiny error, as the hyperdrive motivator should be plural."
jesus christ… I think at this point they might be doing this on purpose to tick off Brickset reviewers :(
Given it’s a new exclusive UCS set minifigure it would have been nice if LEGO had produced a new helmet that covered the chinstrap on the alternate face print. At least it won’t be visible when Luke is on the display stand.
Still not sure about this one. I missed out on the previous UCS versions, but if I do decide to buy I'll be waiting for a discount which of course may not happen. Overall it looks pretty good, and I like the printed canopy, plaque, and the Luke with dual molded legs. Don't care for the side gaps when the wings open up, or the gap in the wings when they are closed, or the fact that they used rubber bands for the opening/closing mechanism.
Those inverted tiles on the S foils are only 4x8, not 8x16.
"Extremely accurate shape"? Are you kidding me?
- the nose is wrong
- the thickness of the front fuselage is wrong
- the canopy / hull connection is wrong (no triangular shaping at all)
- the wings are too short
- there is no landing gear which adds to the shape
this is "ultimate collector series" which mean it's expensive, it's for collection in a long time and there for should be able functional / playable in a very long time.
and they put rubber bands.... isn't rubber band have a short life time?
7191 was one of my first Star Wars sets, this looks good but not sure if I can justify the cost if this for something that is so similar. At the end of the day, all x-wings look the same to me. Although, I do like the Death Star 2 GWP so that mat sway my decision.
Great review! Thanks, Capn. The model looks better than expected - maybe going to buy it later, at a discount or with a gwp.
@MudkipDoom said:
"Hmm, I still don't know how I feel about this one. Individually each part is definitely way more accurate than the 2013 model and pretty well done overall, it just feels off as an overall model, its hard to put my finger on."
My thoughts exactly. I think it’s largely that the wings are too short and the fuselage doesn’t taper enough from the engines to the nose. I do like the fact that they finally have the hexagonal shape, but it comes at the expense of the whole front half being much too wide and bulky.
I’ll stick with my 10240, and maybe try to mod some of the improvements into it.
Still prefer the pervious 2013 version and this just seems overpriced and not that great of an update to an existing starfighter.
Still, if I see it on sale at at half price on Amazon or Zavvi I might pick it up.
With this being the 40th anniversary of ROTJ, why didn't we get a new updated UCS TIE Interceptor instead of yet another X-Wing.