Prabal Nandy (nandy@U.Arizona.EDU)
Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:59:52 -0700 (MST)
> it's definitely taller than the MG model, but not by much...only the
> headcrest, but it's proportions suggest that it should be the same
> scale...the cockpit hatch, for example, seems to be really built for 1/100.
The 1/144 HCM is _taller_ than the 1/100 MG? You must have that
backward, right? Yes, the HCM always seemed to have a too-big chest to me.
> The head is almost the same size in both cases, but specially the V-fin,
> which is practically the same in dimensions. Intersting enough, the Head
> crest is more pronounced in the MG version, along with the chin. The neck
Yeah, they went a little overboard with it in my opinion. Maybe I'll
turn it into a GM head of some kind...
> one. btw, the head-mounted guns are better looking in the MG version, but
> is not as sturdy looking as in the HCM, but the HCM version gives the
> impression that it is more of a comm array as compared to the MG.
Well, the MG has a big antenna on one side, but it is fairly slim and
trim looking, that's for sure.
> The chest area is 1.5 times wider than the MG version, with wide top
> chest area that slightly tapers as it goes downward to the torso. Yes, it
> does have moving chest vents (up/down), which kinda suggests that they are
That is very very strange! Though I guess the GP-01FB had verniers
there, it's still really strange to me.
> the chest on the HCM is BIG, in terms of cross section. There's a lot of
> additional line detail onthe chest in the HCM (a small radiator vent on top
> of the main chest vents, some weird lines on the front of the cockpit
> hatch, manuevering nozzle/slats on the undersides of the chest, in line
> w/the main vent).
That's dissappointing then that the MG lacks those details! On the other
hand, the MG torso looks more proportionately right than the HCM.
> better detail. The shoulders themselves are very different for both. The
> HCM has a very ineresting sliding hinge connection to the actual shoulder
> underneath, therefore the side thrusters in the shoulder "pads" move in
> accordance with the position of the shoulder underneath. This is very
So you're saying that there are thrusters inside the shoulder armors
that are linked to the actual internal frame of the shoulder? Now that's
> different from the MG version, which is basically a cowl for the real
Right, no surprises there.
> shoulder. The arms of the HCM really do suggest muscles, and are very
> large in that sense, with the hands and fingers being much larger in the
> HCM. The shield connection depressions are LARGE and deep, to accomodate
Well, I always felt that the HCM's arms were TOO big and muscley, but I
see what you mean...
> The skirt design on the MG seems to be derived from the HCM skirt, with an
> important difference: the back skirt of the HCM version is hinged, while
> the MG's isn't -- but that's because the MG has a bazooka holder that folds
Yeah! The GP-01 rear skirts were articulated, so I was pretty
dissappointed to see that the MG Mk.II's were not! Grr!
> The legs are humongous when it comes to the HCM, with the calves having
> shock absorbers built into them...giving a truly imposing set of legs. The
Spring-loaded shock absorbers?
> MG version looks more athletic than bulky. Alas, the feet only swivel
> forward and backward in teh HCM.
That's too bad, the HCM Rick Dias has ball-jointed feet of some kind
which are really nice. The MG version does (as you say) have a much
trimmer overall look.
> The rifles are almost the same, clips and all, but the side handle of the
> rifle is a problem: in the HCM version, it is removable, as if it were a
> clip for the weapon, while on the MG it is really just a handle...the
That is kind of strange, are you sure it's not just removable because
it's a toy and it's easier to make that way? I thought it really _was_
supposed to be just a handle.
> rifle also cannot be fastened to the side like in the MG. The beam sabers
Well, the HG couldn't do that either so it's not a big deal...
> guidelines about dangerous toys. The shield is more substantial looking in
> the HCM, but doesn't come with the clipholders (which, when full of clips
> blocks the shield's viewport...I dunno which is more ridiculous, a shield
> with a view port, considering how gundams "see", or the fact that the
> viewport is blocked by weapon clips -- what happens if a stray shot hits
It is pretty silly, especially since exploding M-Particle clips would
probably pack a hell of a wallop when they blow! Yeek! And you want to
mount these behind a piece of armor that's _Supposed_ to get hit?
> those clips?). The shield does have the retracting armor bit for both.
Though it feels very flimsy on the MG model.
> The backpack is almost the same in design for both, with the HCM having
> more manueverable top fins than the MG, and is of course bigger to go with
> the large chest. There is no bazooka for the HCM, which is a shame.
Right... It's too bad that the MG kit has fins that are sort of stymied
by the fact that they've got those little cloth hoses going into ports on
the sides of the fins. They don't move much either.
> The colors of the HCM are also ugh. the "white" parts have a greenish
> sort of hue, but the blue and red parts are okay/close to the cartoon...the
YUCK! I HATES that puke-green color! Ewww!
> Oh, the chest opens the same way in both versions, but the HCM opens to
> show another door and some engine parts (all in silver-plated plastic),
> while the MG version has an actual cockpit.
That is kinda neat, the HG kit also had an inner door or hatch in the
middle of the chest. The MG is basically just a copy of that.
> OKie Probe! That's the best I can give for now....
Thanks alot! Sounds like the HCM Mk.II was definately a more interesting
HCM than say, the Type-100 (which is basically not much better than a
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Mar 12 1999 - 05:00:48 JST