“Jedi”
Our Collective 5-Foot Millennium Falcon Build
- Thread starter Studio Kitbash
- Start date
“Jedi”
bwayne64
Master Member
Thank you for this. We need a list for every kit like this. But the amount of work would be staggering. Great job man !
This is part of my goal once I get my parts map finished.
bwayne64
Master Member
Yea these threads are fantastic. The youngsters don't know how good they have it, ; ) Everything is gonna be here in one spot. Thanks to you and everyone that is contributing. Much appreciated !
File Under: The Dummy Method Often Works Best:
So I spend three years going through seven iterations of the engine vent rings, finally landing on the 'count the louver' method of the vintage Koolshade to narrow in on the ID and OD of the rings.
And THEN, after years of searching, I finally find an original Bandai 1/24 M60, and Duh, Guess What?
Well, here's what:
The OD of the engine vent ring is precisely, exactly, and only keyed to the built-in curvature of the Bandai 1/24 M60 stowage boxes, and most likely THAT'S how ILM figured out how large to make them.
So again, this is no help to me, but DOES help you as you figure out how to reverse-engineer this thing into perfection.
So Dummy, Listen Up: get all your original kits first, and THEN you'll see that figuring out the size of other things is a whole lot easier.
(Okay, I'll stop talking to myself now...)
And yes, if you're asking -- that's a used/already-built M60 I found, and then hacked apart for use on my Falcon. That's natural dust accumulation from forty years in a Japanese basement!
So I spend three years going through seven iterations of the engine vent rings, finally landing on the 'count the louver' method of the vintage Koolshade to narrow in on the ID and OD of the rings.
And THEN, after years of searching, I finally find an original Bandai 1/24 M60, and Duh, Guess What?
Well, here's what:
The OD of the engine vent ring is precisely, exactly, and only keyed to the built-in curvature of the Bandai 1/24 M60 stowage boxes, and most likely THAT'S how ILM figured out how large to make them.
So again, this is no help to me, but DOES help you as you figure out how to reverse-engineer this thing into perfection.
So Dummy, Listen Up: get all your original kits first, and THEN you'll see that figuring out the size of other things is a whole lot easier.
(Okay, I'll stop talking to myself now...)
And yes, if you're asking -- that's a used/already-built M60 I found, and then hacked apart for use on my Falcon. That's natural dust accumulation from forty years in a Japanese basement!
Too many medium-scale Chieftains to choose from...
Bandai, Nitto, Otaki, Oh My...
Look at the size differences in the upper hulls.
The largest one is 1/50 scale. The smallest one is 1/55 scale. The middle one is "unscaled" but judging from size I'm going to guess "box scale" of roughly 1/51 or 1/52.
And exactly ONE of these gives you the correct Scarab/Mandala greeblie that is so elusive:
Oh, Goldilocks... why must you always be so difficult to find?
Bandai, Nitto, Otaki, Oh My...
Look at the size differences in the upper hulls.
The largest one is 1/50 scale. The smallest one is 1/55 scale. The middle one is "unscaled" but judging from size I'm going to guess "box scale" of roughly 1/51 or 1/52.
And exactly ONE of these gives you the correct Scarab/Mandala greeblie that is so elusive:
Oh, Goldilocks... why must you always be so difficult to find?
Originals:
Castings:
Check the Project Runs board if you want the castings. You really can't afford the originals... and neither could I !!!
Castings:
Check the Project Runs board if you want the castings. You really can't afford the originals... and neither could I !!!
A decent substitute will do in a pinch...
Pictured at bottom in green: the original elusive mandible pit greeblie upper hull Tiger II deck.
In tan, above, on left and right, two reasonable substitutes in case you can't find the original.
In tan, on upper left, the Academy 1/48 Hunting Tiger.
In tan, on upper right, the Academy 1/48 King Tiger.
Now notice the teeny-tiny differences, think about the superimposition of additional greeblies, and make your choice accordingly.
Look closer - this isn't a "Where's Waldo?" mystery, this is a two-part game with consequences.
Part 1: Notice what the three hulls have in common, and then notice what the three have in differences -- no two are identical.
Part 2: Choose which differences you can live with, because those will either "show" or "be hidden" more, depending on the choice you make.
- Top line of the Hunting Tiger doesn't give you as much real estate on your horizontal surface thanks to the vertical plane of the upper box.
- Door hinge clasps are different between Hunting Tiger and King Tiger, but one of them is a closer match to Tiger II
- The two round vent centers on Hunting Tiger and King Tiger are very different, and one of them is identical to Tiger II
- The Tiger II has protruding nipples on the two small rounds at bottom, whereas on the Hunting Tiger and King Tiger they are both indented.
Don't know about you, but for my money, I would choose...
1. You can always add a strip of sprue to the upper horizontal section of the Hunting Tiger for more real estate.
2. You can always "warm up" those cold inverted nipples on the two small rounds by adding two small pieces of round tube stock.
3. You can't possibly "fix" the two large round vent center differences between the Tiger II and the King Tiger, so go with the near-identical pattern on the Hunting Tiger as those "show" the most, and will be the key "tell" that let's people know you're using originals versus faking it.
And then of course, finally, get a life! NOBODY is going to notice this or care one way or another, ONLY YOU are, so really please never forget that you are not pleasing your audience, but only your inner obsession and nothing else... There will be exactly ten other humans on planet earth who would even notice this, and nine of them are never going to see your build anyway.
Pictured at bottom in green: the original elusive mandible pit greeblie upper hull Tiger II deck.
In tan, above, on left and right, two reasonable substitutes in case you can't find the original.
In tan, on upper left, the Academy 1/48 Hunting Tiger.
In tan, on upper right, the Academy 1/48 King Tiger.
Now notice the teeny-tiny differences, think about the superimposition of additional greeblies, and make your choice accordingly.
Look closer - this isn't a "Where's Waldo?" mystery, this is a two-part game with consequences.
Part 1: Notice what the three hulls have in common, and then notice what the three have in differences -- no two are identical.
Part 2: Choose which differences you can live with, because those will either "show" or "be hidden" more, depending on the choice you make.
- Top line of the Hunting Tiger doesn't give you as much real estate on your horizontal surface thanks to the vertical plane of the upper box.
- Door hinge clasps are different between Hunting Tiger and King Tiger, but one of them is a closer match to Tiger II
- The two round vent centers on Hunting Tiger and King Tiger are very different, and one of them is identical to Tiger II
- The Tiger II has protruding nipples on the two small rounds at bottom, whereas on the Hunting Tiger and King Tiger they are both indented.
Don't know about you, but for my money, I would choose...
1. You can always add a strip of sprue to the upper horizontal section of the Hunting Tiger for more real estate.
2. You can always "warm up" those cold inverted nipples on the two small rounds by adding two small pieces of round tube stock.
3. You can't possibly "fix" the two large round vent center differences between the Tiger II and the King Tiger, so go with the near-identical pattern on the Hunting Tiger as those "show" the most, and will be the key "tell" that let's people know you're using originals versus faking it.
And then of course, finally, get a life! NOBODY is going to notice this or care one way or another, ONLY YOU are, so really please never forget that you are not pleasing your audience, but only your inner obsession and nothing else... There will be exactly ten other humans on planet earth who would even notice this, and nine of them are never going to see your build anyway.
Th
Guess I was right. "Honey you are going to work on that freaking star wars hobby again?" , Yes hon I am going to do some warming of inverted nipples today"....
And your last paragraph... Do you know how hard it is, to get a a life? To draw the line... where does it stop. If there is a remote chance to get the kit somewhere
But anyway, thanks for sharing. Looks like a good alternative.
And what about the 'back plate' of the both?
Thanks for this... I did extencsive research and one day 1 thought the Academy COULD be a substitue.. but never had one for good reference.
Guess I was right. "Honey you are going to work on that freaking star wars hobby again?" , Yes hon I am going to do some warming of inverted nipples today"....
And your last paragraph... Do you know how hard it is, to get a a life? To draw the line... where does it stop. If there is a remote chance to get the kit somewhere
But anyway, thanks for sharing. Looks like a good alternative.And what about the 'back plate' of the both?
But since your post.... a little more as 10 people know about it.... thanks. hahaha
So the question is... Original Nipples / casted Nipples or modified Nipples.
BTW Point 3 of your post... you won't see the center of the Vents. there is some piping coming to the center of those vents. When its down in the Pit.
So the question is... Original Nipples / casted Nipples or modified Nipples.
BTW Point 3 of your post... you won't see the center of the Vents. there is some piping coming to the center of those vents. When its down in the Pit.
Last edited:
SK,
Nice specific case study on greeblie model building obsession and some sanity on how to keep it in check. Kit part fidelity is important and I greatly appreciate the fanatic, if he or she can maintain happiness. The history and kit part differences is really a fun part to know about.
Lots of other obsession “walls” have been discussed in the RFP web site Falcon threads. It’s good for the builder that attempts this to have a strategy before hand or promptly develop one to be happy in this Kamikaze build.
Nice specific case study on greeblie model building obsession and some sanity on how to keep it in check. Kit part fidelity is important and I greatly appreciate the fanatic, if he or she can maintain happiness. The history and kit part differences is really a fun part to know about.
Lots of other obsession “walls” have been discussed in the RFP web site Falcon threads. It’s good for the builder that attempts this to have a strategy before hand or promptly develop one to be happy in this Kamikaze build.
How do you build this section on the bottom of the Falcon...
Without creating this problem... since the Bandai M60 upper hull section HAS to be pushed flat to achieve a level surface match with the Yardley McLaren monocoque body piece?
Answer: a section of H-beam, cut and sanded to height and length, and a "stiffener" in the center portion:
So that the end result looks nice and flat and flush to the Yardley chassis:
Also, am I right, that THIS is the original R2-unit droid socket:
I feel like it needs saying, because I've seen/heard no one else say it, and I think it must have been the original inspiration for the "droid strip" section of the X-Wing and the Y-Wing, but then again I was an English major and tend to let my imagination get the better of me...
Without creating this problem... since the Bandai M60 upper hull section HAS to be pushed flat to achieve a level surface match with the Yardley McLaren monocoque body piece?
Answer: a section of H-beam, cut and sanded to height and length, and a "stiffener" in the center portion:
So that the end result looks nice and flat and flush to the Yardley chassis:
Also, am I right, that THIS is the original R2-unit droid socket:
I feel like it needs saying, because I've seen/heard no one else say it, and I think it must have been the original inspiration for the "droid strip" section of the X-Wing and the Y-Wing, but then again I was an English major and tend to let my imagination get the better of me...
I was an English major too. It’s all starting to make sense now….
Ha! That's funny. Thanks to Star Wars, I was originally a comparative religion major, but after I'd read all the Joseph Campbell I could get my hands on, I decided to stick with writing and literature and communications in grad school. It was only years later that I learned that Lucas went to community college before moving on to film school... so of course, I also got a master's degree in Film and Media, you know, just in case!
Why you should go vintage, whenever you can...
See the new decal sheet underneath the old decal sheet? That's not just aging and weathering, that's two different colors altogether, and a complete change of number font. The vintage decals (on the right) are orange, the new ones are red. But the 4228 numbers are altogether different, as is the wording below it. You can 'age' a new decal with enough mist and overspray, but you can't get that vintage 70's orange look and feel without using the original decals. If Star Wars is an old, beat-up universe, then for sure you want old, beat-up decals to mimic that style.
See the new decal sheet underneath the old decal sheet? That's not just aging and weathering, that's two different colors altogether, and a complete change of number font. The vintage decals (on the right) are orange, the new ones are red. But the 4228 numbers are altogether different, as is the wording below it. You can 'age' a new decal with enough mist and overspray, but you can't get that vintage 70's orange look and feel without using the original decals. If Star Wars is an old, beat-up universe, then for sure you want old, beat-up decals to mimic that style.
You already knew this, intuitively, but here's the mathematical proof for why the Millennium Falcon is the most beautiful space ship in Sci-Fi history: she's perfectly proportional, and fits the Fibonacci ratio like a glove.
Now this is the Bandai hand-sized 1/350 scale Falcon -- which was made from digital scans of the original -- but this is a Fibonacci gauge accurate to 0.25mm, so it's fairly telling. And the golden cut shows up all over her...
In the center-to-outside ratio of where the center of the radar dish base shows up:
In the front-tip mandible width to negative-space ratio:
You even find it in places you wouldn't expect, like in the relationship between the docking arm walkway length....
...and the jawbox top width (which is to say, the calipers neither expand nor contract between the above picture and the below picture, they only change location)
Or this relationship, which is the max width of the engine vent rings from far lower port OD to far lower starboard OD...
... and the height of said engine arrangement, from center top OD to center bottom OD (again, the calipers have not expanded or contracted, only changed location), demonstrating the 1:1.618 ratio between the "length" and "width" of the engine layout.
And the ratio of the nosecone max OD...
...to the centerline length of the front nosecone tube section from the top:
(Which, if correct, means that measure on the 5-footer should be 9.71")
And my personal favorite: the relationship of the rear lower landing gear bay box max width...
to the max inner length of the lower forward mandible pits:
(Again: calipers have neither expanded nor contracted between the two above pictures, they have only moved location, revealing that the ratio of the width of the lower landing gear bay to the length of the forward lower mandible pit is 1:1618)
These are stunningly consistent proofs that Joe Johnston had an almost "perfect eye" for proper proportionality when he designed these ships.
I figured all this out on the Y-Wing a few years ago, and made a post about it in 2016 on DaveG's Open Source Y-Wing thread.
Did Joe Johnston know about the Fibonacci ratio when he designed these things? No, he did not. He didn't learn about in industrial design school, and had never heard about it in 1975.
And yes, this also conclusively proves your gut feeling on why the SOLO movie's "original" Millennium Falcon design (with the escape pod stuck between the front mandibles) is so freaking ugly -- it's totally disproportional thanks to the addition of that escape pod, and something Joe Johnston would/could never have tolerated, for the simple reason that it just "looks wrong."
Now this is the Bandai hand-sized 1/350 scale Falcon -- which was made from digital scans of the original -- but this is a Fibonacci gauge accurate to 0.25mm, so it's fairly telling. And the golden cut shows up all over her...
In the center-to-outside ratio of where the center of the radar dish base shows up:
In the front-tip mandible width to negative-space ratio:
You even find it in places you wouldn't expect, like in the relationship between the docking arm walkway length....
...and the jawbox top width (which is to say, the calipers neither expand nor contract between the above picture and the below picture, they only change location)
Or this relationship, which is the max width of the engine vent rings from far lower port OD to far lower starboard OD...
... and the height of said engine arrangement, from center top OD to center bottom OD (again, the calipers have not expanded or contracted, only changed location), demonstrating the 1:1.618 ratio between the "length" and "width" of the engine layout.
And the ratio of the nosecone max OD...
...to the centerline length of the front nosecone tube section from the top:
(Which, if correct, means that measure on the 5-footer should be 9.71")
And my personal favorite: the relationship of the rear lower landing gear bay box max width...
to the max inner length of the lower forward mandible pits:
(Again: calipers have neither expanded nor contracted between the two above pictures, they have only moved location, revealing that the ratio of the width of the lower landing gear bay to the length of the forward lower mandible pit is 1:1618)
These are stunningly consistent proofs that Joe Johnston had an almost "perfect eye" for proper proportionality when he designed these ships.
I figured all this out on the Y-Wing a few years ago, and made a post about it in 2016 on DaveG's Open Source Y-Wing thread.
Did Joe Johnston know about the Fibonacci ratio when he designed these things? No, he did not. He didn't learn about in industrial design school, and had never heard about it in 1975.
And yes, this also conclusively proves your gut feeling on why the SOLO movie's "original" Millennium Falcon design (with the escape pod stuck between the front mandibles) is so freaking ugly -- it's totally disproportional thanks to the addition of that escape pod, and something Joe Johnston would/could never have tolerated, for the simple reason that it just "looks wrong."
