About
All feedback (164)
- shivshearing (300)- Feedback left by buyer.Past monthVerified purchaseExcellent Buyer, many thanks!
- l-o-z (919)- Feedback left by buyer.Past 6 monthsVerified purchaseThanks very much - great buyer!
- gamecat69 (396)- Feedback left by buyer.Past yearVerified purchaseFast payment, great buyer, thanks so much 🙏👍
- ianc8018 (1273)- Feedback left by buyer.Past yearVerified purchaseFast Payment Easy To Deal With, Excellent Ebayer, Many Thanks For Your Purchase!
- dedgood (762)- Feedback left by buyer.Past yearVerified purchaseTop Ebayer, superfast payment, A++++++++++
- m-sweeney (1157)- Feedback left by buyer.Past yearVerified purchaseImmediate payment with no issues. Recommended buyer. Thanks!
Reviews (2)
15 June 2016
Good model for education or display
If you were thinking of buying the Dragon 1:72 or Revell 1:96 Saturn V models, perhaps consider this model instead. It's much more accurate although not perfect, it's prepainted, and it assembles within a couple of hours mostly without needing any glue. Fine detail is lacking (for example on the S-1C first stage, the hold downs, internal fairing struts, gimbal actuators, and umbilical panels are missing) and there is a slight orientation error between the S-II and S-IVB stages. However, the errors are nothing like as noticeable as those in the other models that I mentioned and it makes an impressive display piece or an excellent educational item as it shows the(somewhat simplified) innards of the monster rocket that took Man to the Moon. It's a tad expensive though, especially if you import it.
24 August 2016
Good enough but by no means perfect
The ascent stage of the Dragon 1:72 LM is more correctly detailed than the Airfix 1:72 LM kit albeit with some errors -- an incorrect aspect ratio for the front antenna panel (between the triangular windows), the incorrect inclusion of the VHF scimitar antenna (which wasn't used after Apollo 9), and incorrect orientation of the reaction control thruster nozzles. The descent stage is too short by about 5mm, which unfortunately makes the LM overall look too squat and isn't easily correctable. To anyone who isn't a nitpicker like me, it's probably just fine. It looks good enough and after 47 years, hardly anyone would notice or care about the inaccuracies. The CM and SM are much better than many other manufacturer's models, which tend to be based on the early block 1 design that only flew uncrewed. The main error is the off-centre tank head on the top of the SM but this is hidden by the CM heat shield.