Review Review: 10240 Red Five X-Wing Starfighter

[Wedge09]

Awesome set Thank you a lot for giving us this fantastic review

[J.V.D.]

Impressive review Rufus, it realy shows what a UCS set is all about. Maybe admins should introduce, next to the academy reviews, an UEBR (Ultimate Eurobricks Review) category.. :-)

But due to budget ( to many other sets on my wishlist) and available space reasons ( a set like this should realy be on display in an appropriate manner), I will not get it.

Though I know it is kind of comparing apples with oranges, I am perfectly happy with displaying my 9493 in a dogfight with my 9492.

Those minifigure sized sets still have for me that charming touch of the Lego take on pop culture items that dragged me out of my dark ages.

Something I am missing in this UCS set, despite of its impressive and detailed build.

[Anio]

Nice review, a bit too long for my taste though.

Incidentally, the connection between the slanting sides and the main body isn't an exact number of studs. With a 28-stud long hypotenuse, and a 2-stud long short side, the long side of the triangle this produces is 0.6 mm too short - this is (presumably) withing the tolerances of LEGO bricks, as it seems to work fine. See here for a visual explanation.

Maybe I'm wrong.

But if you check the build more carefully, you will see that it is actually a diagonal in a diagonal, and so, the bricks match perfectly.

There is no illegal connection that may stress the bricks.

edit : my black support twists too. Can't figure out why. Any idea ?

Edited May 3, 2013 by Anio

[prideprince]

Good review~~

10240 is better than the 7191.

It Thank you, a For more Reviews,.

It was released today in the Republic of Korea.

The Korea Review link.

http://www.brickinside.com/NeoView.php?Db=ReviewProfessional&Number=6535&BackDepth=1

10240 vs 7191

http://www.brickinside.com/NeoView.php?Db=ReviewProfessional&Number=6536&BackDepth=1

[BrickieB]

Thank you very much for this extensive review! (ordered mine a few minutes ago, can't wait till it's here :) )

Edited May 3, 2013 by BrickieB

[Alternator]

Well I'm sold, thanks for a great in depth review.

Regarding that extra sticker sheet, do you suppose that is intentional in case we screw up on the first application - I mean that could really have a negative impact on the whole model and it looks like an absolute PiTA to apply precisely.

[TheLegoDr]

Thank you for this review. Incredibly informative and helpful. I love seeing the final product, but it is nice to see how it gets to be that way also.

With that said, like many others, I probably will pass only because of display space and money already being promised to other sets this year. I considered the B-wing for May 4th, but I think in all honesty the new X-Wing deserves people's money more. Granted, I don't know much about SW other than what I've learned through LEGO.

And further with that said, I also love 2012's version of the X-Wing and TIE-Fighter. I think LEGO knocked it out of the park with sets last year (for the most part), so since I have those system scale MF, X-Wing, and TIE, I probably won't be getting any UCS sets for a while and won't be kicking myself for missing out on them.

Thanks for sharing. Great pictures!

[gratefulnat]

Just placed my order for the set, can't wait

Thanks for an amazing review Rufus , you covered all the aspects. Certainly a review that needs time to read and digest, rather than just a quick overview.

I like this version more than 7191, but I have an emotional attachment to 7191 that this new set will never be able to replace, so I voted for 7191. Just goes to show how emotional LEGO is for some of us, when you like a lesser model more...

But I know they'll look great together on my shelf.

[Rufus]

Thanks for the replies, everyone! I can't respond to everyone, unfortunately.

it's hard to believe you were ever taking advice from me .

It's all your fault, Cammo!

I discovered it on Mike's x-wing model and found it really clever.

I came across that one whilst researching this review. It's nice.

Might need to MOC the nose cone though...

Agreed. Some SNOT cheeses on the front might do the trick.

If I have a criticism it's the teeny R2-D2 behind the cockpit.... A UCS Jedi Starfighter-style printed dome would have looked better IMHO.

Thanks Dave! I agree, R2 continues to be too small. a 4w dome might be too big - they need a 3x3.

A million thanks to you, Rufus old buddy!

Thanks for frontpaging, Fangy!

this part, love it so useful better than using hands to hold things onto all the time http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=11090

Thank you for pointing that out! Finding parts you are unfamiliar with on BL is tricky.

Maybe admins should introduce, next to the academy reviews, an UEBR (Ultimate Eurobricks Review) category.. :-)

I think things will spiral out of control! This one is already longer than I was comfortable with, but I wanted to be thorough.

Something I am missing in this UCS set, despite of its impressive and detailed build.

Yeah, the charm of the minifigure is hard to beat. UCS is what pulled me from my dark age, though.

Maybe I'm wrong.

But if you check the build more carefully, you will see that it is actually a diagonal in a diagonal, and so, the bricks match perfectly.

There is no illegal connection that may stress the bricks.

This isn't desperately important, but I probably haven't made my point clearly enough, so here's what I mean:

I've modded the fuselage so that the right-hand side as you look at it is straight in frame 0. You can easily attach the hinge as you move it outwards by a stud at a time until you get to frame 3 - three studs out - when you have to force it; in frame 4 it won't attach to the plate. Therefore, as the side is rotated, the parts are under increasing strain.

edit : my black support twists too. Can't figure out why. Any idea ?

I swapped the two long technic beams, and now it twists the other way! I've no idea why - none of my other UCS stands have done this.

Regarding that extra sticker sheet, do you suppose that is intentional in case we screw up on the first application - I mean that could really have a negative impact on the whole model and it looks like an absolute PiTA to apply precisely.

Yup. The instructions really help. Whether the extra is deliberate or just a consequence of the way the sets are packaged, I can't answer.

I like this version more than 7191, but I have an emotional attachment to 7191 that this new set will never be able to replace, so I voted for 7191. Just goes to show how emotional LEGO is for some of us, when you like a lesser model more...

I bet you change your mind when you've built it.

[gratefulnat]

I bet you change your mind when you've built it.

you're probably right...

[Alasdair Ryan]

What a great review Rufus.

It looks Like a awesome set to have for any real star wars fan.

Watching the building process I had a rather interesting idea....If you are lucky enough to own the technic control, center it would be rather cool I think if you attached the X-wing to to it and then you could simulate it flying.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Alasdair Ryan

[prateek]

Great review Rufus! I think this is definitely one of the best SW sets in a long time. I don't think this set has any major drawbacks, except that 1) the huge canopy sticker might turn some people away, and 2) The R2-D2 is just too damn small! I have to disagree about the nose though. In my opinion it looks fine, and kinda reminds you that it is made of Lego after all. Also, I think the greeble behind R2 is better on the old kit.

I was also rather taken aback to find 3x3 plates in this bag: thinking I'd found a new part, I hurried to Bricklink to discover that they appear in the Hobbit set Attack of the Wargs - which has been sitting in front of me since Christmas waiting to be built. A part I couldn't find is the two pole-clips in the centre-front of the picture: please let me know if these have been found elsewhere.

The part you're looking for is this. It's a pretty new piece, and useful for minifig weapons and the sort.

Edited May 3, 2013 by prateek

[BrickieB]

I came across the 3x3 plate in the promo baggie (headhunter) http://rebrickable.com/sets/30240-1/z-95-headhunter-star-wars-clone-wars-2013

[Mr Bill]

Thanks for the awesome review, Rufus. Having missed 7191 back in the day (lack of $) I look forward to gettinf this to display next to my 7181 TIE!!!

--Mr Bill

[Anio]

This isn't desperately important, but I probably haven't made my point clearly enough, so here's what I mean:

[skip]

I've modded the fuselage so that the right-hand side as you look at it is straight in frame 0. You can easily attach the hinge as you move it outwards by a stud at a time until you get to frame 3 - three studs out - when you have to force it; in frame 4 it won't attach to the plate. Therefore, as the side is rotated, the parts are under increasing strain.

Woo... I meant that the length of the fuselage match exactly the Lego system. And there is no stress of 0,6mm. :)

I swapped the two long technic beams, and now it twists the other way! I've no idea why - none of my other UCS stands have done this.

My models twists the same side than yours. It is really curious.

I checked every part. And each of them is correct. Then, when I build the support (and do not put the model on it), it twists...

I will report that problem to Lego.

edit : btw, when 7191 is correctly built, its wings are perfectly horizontal.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Anio

[Brad Watson]

Wow Rufus, that was one fantastic review! Every detail I could think of was covered. Well done and thank you!

Unfortunately this set is not in my price range, but I wish that it was.

Thanks!

Brad

[Kim Thomsen]

Awesome review - amazing stuff.

To me this is the 2nd best UCS set so far.

And it is definetly equally great to swoosh.

Thanks Rufus on a job well done

I built the one we used for the unveiling at LEGOWorld in February and it was indeed a super build, I have no fingers to point at the set or design, though I could agree that the nose design leaves space for some modding.

[Commander_Rob]

Stellar review, long, yes, but the set deserves it.

I very much like the little hints on the in-build photos on the bits that'll be important later on and how you come back to those, greatly helps appreciate all the tricks and techniques.

[marvinblue]

Beautiful.. simply beautiful!! Thanks so much for the review. Now the scheming begins on how to slip this into the collection un-noticed.....!!

[KingSlayer33]

Absolutely epic review. Thank you very much for it Rufus.

[Kim Thomsen]

I just checked the one I built for the unveiling and I have the same twist issue with the stand.

I will make a report on it and I urge all of you who experience the same to call consumer service and report it.

[Erik Leppen]

Incidentally, the connection between the slanting sides and the main body isn't an exact number of studs. With a 28-stud long hypotenuse, and a 2-stud long short side, the long side of the triangle this produces is 0.6 mm too short - this is (presumably) withing the tolerances of LEGO bricks, as it seems to work fine. See here for a visual explanation.

I've modded the fuselage so that the right-hand side as you look at it is straight in frame 0. You can easily attach the hinge as you move it outwards by a stud at a time until you get to frame 3 - three studs out - when you have to force it; in frame 4 it won't attach to the plate. Therefore, as the side is rotated, the parts are under increasing strain.

I have to correct you on this, because you are wrong in both the original review and in your explanation.

The fit is exact.

You can see the technique they used here:

The red plates are spaced two, four or six studs apart and offset two studs sideways. The hinges are at the corners where the colored plates touch the red plates. As you can see, the distance between the hinges is NOT the length of the colored plate, but the length of the DIAGONAL of the colored plate. By using the other diagonal of the colored plate one can create a slanted edge. And because the diagonals of a rectangle are of the same length, this is an exact fit.

In fact, in the series of numbered images you show when explaining the case, the fit is exact on images 0 and 2, and the offset is negative on image 1 - in that image, the distance between the hinges is shorter than the diagonal of the slanted section.

[Anio]

Thank you for clarifying what I meant.

I would never have succeeded to explain this in English. Oo

[Alternator]

I have to correct you on this, because you are wrong in both the original review and in your explanation.

The fit is exact.

You can see the technique they used here:

~----------~

The red plates are spaced two, four or six studs apart and offset two studs sideways. The hinges are at the corners where the colored plates touch the red plates. As you can see, the distance between the hinges is NOT the length of the colored plate, but the length of the DIAGONAL of the colored plate. By using the other diagonal of the colored plate one can create a slanted edge. And because the diagonals of a rectangle are of the same length, this is an exact fit.

In fact, in the series of numbered images you show when explaining the case, the fit is exact on images 0 and 2, and the offset is negative on image 1 - in that image, the distance between the hinges is shorter than the diagonal of the slanted section.

That reminds me, Lego has a video of that technique on it's creator product pages; quite handy

Edited May 4, 2013 by Alternator

[gotoAndLego]

If I have a criticism it's the teeny R2-D2 behind the cockpit.... A UCS Jedi Starfighter-style printed dome would have looked better IMHO.

I've been looking at images of swings and I think that R2 is size accurate. A 3x3 dome might be too large.