Question about TE derived helmets

[TK3202]

Ok guys, just curious here. To my knowledge (hopefully I understand this correctly), TE2, AP, and ATA (along with PT, etc and even TM to some extent) all derive from TE armor. I'm sure each maker has probably "fixed" aspects of the armor before they pulled their molds, making each their own.. but something really is bothering me.

 

Why is it that TE2 (or PT) buckets are so much taller than other makers such as ATA or AP? I noticed when I've had my bucket next to some of my friends with these kits, their buckets can be up to 1.5" shorter than mine. I know it's not a problem with my bucket as I've had it next to TE2 buckets (multiple ones, including one I owned) and they're all the same height. I understand that with AP at least, some parts aren't mirrored, etc. and are different, and I understand that a lot of these makers smoothed out some of the bumps to make things cleaner looking and what not, but why would height be effected?

 

What really confuses me, is that it's never the height of the dome (something that could be maybe cut differently). It's the actual face plate.. something that should have the same height from the bottom "chin" aerators to the top of the eyes, that's not matching up.

 

Don't get me wrong, each look perfectly accurate to me, but I'm just trying to understand why armor that's all derived from each other.. despite modest changes.. would have a height difference?

 

As a last note THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A RELIGIOUS DEBATE. I'm simply trying to educate myself here, and am in no way favoring any armor maker or asking anyone which is better.

 

Thanks,

 

Darryl

[pandatrooper[TK]]

I think there's a few things. The forming bucks and whether or not they've been altered / modified, the characteristics of the cap and back, and assembly.

 

Some cap n backs are pulled "deeper" in that they have a bigger undercut (the back part of the tube, that extends out, and comes back towards your neck). When you put this on a table, it can make the back of the helmet a 1/2" taller or so.

 

This is a hard area to pull correctly, and some helmets are deeper than others. Some use thinner and more flexible plastic, some use thicker, some have different heating techniques.

 

I noticed that my AP has a very deep undercut, but the plastic is ABS and thinner than other helmets I have had. My ATA has less of an undercut, and the plastic seems a little thicker than the face.

 

Assembly has a lot to do with a helmet. If you're going for the "Move along" higher brow look, you can simply hinge or rotate the faceplate down to make the brow higher. But this in turn lowers the chin / cheek tubes, so when you put it on a table, now the helmet can be 3/4" taller in the front. Also, if you assemble the face away from the cap and back, this can also affect how it sits.

 

I run into this a lot because I'm only 5' 8", and with bigger helmets my chin of the helmet / cheek tubes can rub the front of the chest armor when I look down. I've just come up with some simple tweaks to make it fit better (and probably appear a little smaller than other helmets)

[Dmian]

Maybe it's due to material shrinkage. You should ask Tony or DL about it.

 

You mean TE2 is smaller than AP, as scaled down?

[trooper18938]

look at the faceplates of the different helmets - My old TE has a "Forehead" that is lacking from AP, and modern helmets that are cut off the molds straight across the brow, See this recently released pic of an original to see what I mean:

[TK3202]

Maybe it's due to material shrinkage. You should ask Tony or DL about it.

 

You mean TE2 is smaller than AP, as scaled down?

 

 

No no, I'm saying the TE2 is larger. The eyes, frown, etc seem to be all the same size, but it's like the distance between all those is different or something because the parts (eyes, frown, etc) don't match up bucket to bucket.

 

Btw, thanks for the other posts. It very well could be the angle of the faceplate. My buddy's AP bucket is more of a Hero look (it's not a hero, but you get my point) than mine which is more of a "move along" look.

 

However, if the angles of the faceplates are the same (again, I'll have to check on this), wouldn't the height of the eyes, nose, and frown be the same for TE2, AP and ATA? Because other than the angle you proposed, I don't see why they would be different if they really came from the same source and weren't changed drastically at all.

 

Btw, while I don't think the dome part you mentioned would be a concern in this case (as I'm measuring faceplate height, and not dome height), your point about "deeper" sections might be true in the aerator areas. This area is typically VERY weak with the accurate buckets, so maybe AP and ATA's have more of a sag there, resulting in a shorter faceplate....

 

Things to ponder about...

 

If anyone else has any ideas, please share!

Edited November 17, 2010 by TK3202

[TK3202]

look at the faceplates of the different helmets - My old TE has a "Forehead" that is lacking from AP, and modern helmets that are cut off the molds straight across the brow, See this recently released pic of an original to see what I mean:

 

That's an awesome picture! And I didnt' know they went up that far on TE buckets. Very cool.

 

But, this wouldn't affect the height of the faceplate (where the eyes, frown and nose match up) as all the excess material is at the top, right?

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

put a tape measure on the faceplate and point out the vertical measurements.

 

I have photos of the AP faceplate done this way.

 

I'll dig em up and post them, then we can do a comparison.

 

I also have the ATA faceplate too... so some side by sides will be shown here.

[TK3202]

Well, I see my buddy who has the AP kit this Thanksgiving, so I'll post some pictures with measurements side by side then . The girl who has an ATA in our Garrison I don't see terribly often, but I remember hers being the same shortened height. Either way, anything you can provide would be really helpful!

 

put a tape measure on the faceplate and point out the vertical measurements.

 

I have photos of the AP faceplate done this way.

 

I'll dig em up and post them, then we can do a comparison.

 

I also have the ATA faceplate too... so some side by sides will be shown here.

Edited November 18, 2010 by TK3202

[FIVE[501st]]

This is interesting for sure.

I've never seen an AP next to my TE2, but I'm curious to know if there really is a difference (visually noticeable difference) in the heights, or if it's mostly assembly of the buckets.

 

I suppose since most of the TE2 buckets I've seen are sandtroopers with the very high brow I think that makes it look taller... but I don't know.

 

Interesting question.

[firebladejedi[TK]]

Take a look at these

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Sly11
Edited to restore images Sly11 2021

[john danter]

I highlighted this fact that theyre all different on a recent 'debate' on my garrisons forums recently

Noticed it a while back rings don't line up as they should

 

Forming based differences like curves and undercuts can be explained simply by the nature of different plastics, a bad pull, where the mould was on the vac bed (heater element variances - usually hotter at source than elsewhere) and are all understandable why lids tend to be different.

 

But why even tear drops or trapezoids move around on some of these lids is not

 

Hinging that faceplate makes a huge difference!!!!

I managed to make my SDS sit nicer by hacking an inch out either side and hinging it deeper in the lid.

 

So never compare lengths between the face and the top of the lid etc, they will move due to construction

 

But the distance from the corner of the eye to the cheekbone tube shouldn't (it's the same bit of plastic)

 

Are you saying you've noticed things like that dont match up? I've never measured them, just visually noticed them

 

John

[R2Dan[TK]]

It's well known that AP lids are smaller compared to others, so are ATA helmets. It all comes down to recast of a recast of a recast with mould shrinkage and warping. Some do it better than others, as there are cheap and more expensive moulding products that will have different qualities (less shrinkage, etc).

 

Funnily enough a mate of mine compared one of the recent GINO V2 kits he sold a while back to a CAP and found out that the Gino lid parts seem to be smaller... it's a weird world!

Edited November 18, 2010 by R2Dan

[john danter]

Yeah good point

What I forgot to mention as well is some moulds are taken from the outside, some from the inside

I did know who had done it which way at one point but can't remember ATM lol

TM mentioned this recently the other day

[Daetrin[Admin]]

I think the only way to compare size is in kit form. Once at a garrison get togeher we had 3 TE2's, and AP, and an RT. The "largest" and "smallest" seemed both be TE2's. Of the TE2's, two where sandy and one was a TK build. So much can happen in the build and even between pulls to cause much variation.

 

While there is probably truth that they are differences in the molds themselves, that seems only one part of the story.

[TK3202]

I highlighted this fact that theyre all different on a recent 'debate' on my garrisons forums recently

Noticed it a while back rings don't line up as they should

 

Forming based differences like curves and undercuts can be explained simply by the nature of different plastics, a bad pull, where the mould was on the vac bed (heater element variances - usually hotter at source than elsewhere) and are all understandable why lids tend to be different.

 

But why even tear drops or trapezoids move around on some of these lids is not

 

Hinging that faceplate makes a huge difference!!!!

I managed to make my SDS sit nicer by hacking an inch out either side and hinging it deeper in the lid.

 

So never compare lengths between the face and the top of the lid etc, they will move due to construction

 

But the distance from the corner of the eye to the cheekbone tube shouldn't (it's the same bit of plastic)

 

Are you saying you've noticed things like that dont match up? I've never measured them, just visually noticed them

 

John

 

Yep, I know that the distance from the top of the eyes to the brow (and even to the top of the dome) can vary by means of construction, so I've not been comparing them that way during troops. The height (or at least some of it) seems to be coming from the faceplate itself... BELOW the top of the eyes. This means that the height difference, at least to my understanding, even if constructed differently, should be coming from the face itself.. unless the angle of the face is so different that it's making it appear one to be shorter than the other.

 

My first thought when comparing the two was to immediately look at the height difference of both buckets from the top of the eyes up... assuming that the height difference MUST have come from there, as it would only make sense. However, I found that the domes had a very similar height, and nothing that would account for the huge difference in height I saw between the two.

 

I also distinctly remember some of the elements of the face (tear boxes, frown, eyes) NOT being the same height on the buckets when compared, which is what really got me thinking about this.

 

 

 

Again, whoever mentioned the angle of the faceplate, could be onto something, as it's not something I thought about. However, I'd not suspect such a huge height difference coming solely from the angle of the face plate. Maybe a half inch, but not 1.5 inches.

 

 

Anywho, we'll see. I'll post pictures of my bucket next to my friend's by next week.

[TK3202]

It's well known that AP lids are smaller compared to others, so are ATA helmets. It all comes down to recast of a recast of a recast with mould shrinkage and warping. Some do it better than others, as there are cheap and more expensive moulding products that will have different qualities (less shrinkage, etc).

 

Funnily enough a mate of mine compared one of the recent GINO V2 kits he sold a while back to a CAP and found out that the Gino lid parts seem to be smaller... it's a weird world!

 

 

Awesome point. This could be the problem then. I didn't know that moulds could vary this greatly in size.

 

So which is more accurate as far as size then... TE2 or AP?

[TK3202]

Yeah good point

What I forgot to mention as well is some moulds are taken from the outside, some from the inside

I did know who had done it which way at one point but can't remember ATM lol

TM mentioned this recently the other day

 

 

If you took it from the outside vs the inside, and knew the thickness of the plastic used, shouldn't you get the same sized helmet regardless of which way you do it though?

[pandatrooper[TK]]

If you took it from the outside vs the inside, and knew the thickness of the plastic used, shouldn't you get the same sized helmet regardless of which way you do it though?

 

Not really. If you recast a helmet "perfectly" from the inside, the resulting copy should be the same as the original.

 

If you cast it from the outside, the resulting helmet will be bigger because of the added thickness of the plastic, and probably lack in detail (softer, rounder shapes)

[troopermaster]

Not really. If you recast a helmet "perfectly" from the inside, the resulting copy should be the same as the original.

 

That's not entirely true.

 

A mould taken from any helmet is never going to produce a helmet the same size because plastic shrinks as it cools and casting materials usually do too. A mould taken from an original helmet is going to be smaller than the original mould is was formed over because it was taken from the shrunken plastic. Each casting thereafter is going to produce smaller moulds.

[pandatrooper[TK]]

That's not entirely true.

 

A mould taken from any helmet is never going to produce a helmet the same size because plastic shrinks as it cools and casting materials usually do too. A mould taken from an original helmet is going to be smaller than the original mould is was formed over because it was taken from the shrunken plastic. Each casting thereafter is going to produce smaller moulds.

 

Ah... which explains why the copies of copies get continually smaller and smaller. Great insight Paul!

[ABS80]

That's not entirely true.

 

A mould taken from any helmet is never going to produce a helmet the same size because plastic shrinks as it cools and casting materials usually do too. A mould taken from an original helmet is going to be smaller than the original mould is was formed over because it was taken from the shrunken plastic. Each casting thereafter is going to produce smaller moulds.

 

 

huuum I don't agree, lets say you form a helmet using a original helmet mold you will get a exact imprint of that mold, by pouring into that helmet you will get a exact copy of the original mold, and when you form your helmt from that mold it will end up being the same exact size as the original helmet, the plastic can't shrink more than the molds, that's the whole idea of vacuumforming, the plastic gets vaccumed around the mold extremly thight can;t shrink any further even when it's cooled. Good casting materials don't shrink at all, some cheaper material do but so little it's impossible to notice by eye and even by measuring your talking mm's.

 

Mark

[trooper18938]

Just for laughs... so this thread doesn't get into "personal attack mode" against all the good producers on this forum:

[troopermaster]

huuum I don't agree, lets say you form a helmet using a original helmet mold you will get a exact imprint of that mold, by pouring into that helmet you will get a exact copy of the original mold, and when you form your helmt from that mold it will end up being the same exact size as the original helmet, the plastic can't shrink more than the molds, that's the whole idea of vacuumforming, the plastic gets vaccumed around the mold extremly thight can;t shrink any further even when it's cooled. Good casting materials don't shrink at all, some cheaper material do but so little it's impossible to notice by eye and even by measuring your talking mm's.

 

Mark

 

That's true in theory, but in reality a mould taken from a forming will never reproduce the original mould.

 

The problem with casting from formed plastic parts is that the plastic never pulls into any crevices tight enough and leaves a mould which has soft edges. This means the next forming will be even softer than the first and then the forming starts to lose the original shape.

 

We are talking really minor differences here but differences all the same.

[john danter]

I agree with Paul on that

This also came up on another heated debated lately lol.

 

Recasts (let's not forget that's what they are here lads - good yes but still recasts) will never produce the same results as the first.

Someone needed to do it or we wouldn't have a hobby. So I'm not knocking anyone, just stating a fact

 

Not only that, pouring a heavy moudling liquid into a paper thin plastic shell some 20+ yrs old (at the time) is bound to make that original shape deform....?

There are ways around that too but whatever you do, you have to hope you're source helmet was a great pull to capture all these details and your casting worked treat.

 

Going back to the original point......

Was the poster saying he's noticed differences in terms of where things are on the faceplate?

E.g. 1 helmet is 37mm from left eye corner to frown corner but helmet 2 is 42mm

Or have what people have answered here so far answered your question?

[davej[TK]]

I just rummaged through a bunch of boxes and pulled out all of my bits and pieces. Just compared AP, ATA, TE, TE2, and Gino V2.

By eye, nothing noticeable. Faceplate pressed to faceplate, a millimetre or 2 here and there. Nothing serious. The smallest one, top to bottom, was the TE, and the biggest was the TE2. As mentioned, there was only millimetres in it.

Conclusions? I didn't use any measuring device but... they all look to be about the same size...