# Fine Molds Falcon mandible accurization.



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Has anyone attempted to correct the mandibles and jaws of Fine Molds' Millennium Falcon?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yes. Lotsa folks over at Starship Modeler. 

On the other hand, I spoke to a guy who knows the guy who worked on designing the kit, and he swears the cocked-in mandibles are a fallacy, and the kit itself is perfectly accurate.


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

Good enough for me. 

John O.


----------



## MartinHatfield (Apr 11, 2004)

This is an issue that I have been greatly interested in myself. In all of my research of ILM's models and blueprints from several sources, I have never encountered any real evidence of the mandibles being skewed inwards. I agree that this may not be true. In a realistic sense, it doesn't seem practical since the mandibles would need to be even for loading or whatever function they were really intended for.

If anynoe out there has evidence to the contrary, please let us know.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

In the new 'Making of Star wars' book, there's a plan view construction drawing by Joe Johnston showing 'cocked-in' mandibles. The MR replica has 'cocked-in' mandibles. But most important of all, the first photo below shows 'cocked-in' mandibles, and a dynamic taper on the jaw. Compare these features with Fine Molds (second photo).


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Are both Falcon filming miniatures identical in this regard?


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

gourounaki said:


> In the new 'Making of Star wars' book, there's a plan view construction drawing by Joe Johnston showing 'cocked-in' mandibles. The MR replica has 'cocked-in' mandibles. But most important of all, the first photo below shows 'cocked-in' mandibles, and a dynamic taper on the jaw. Compare these features with Fine Molds (second photo).


IMHO, the "cocked-in" in the first photo is due to the angle and perspective from where the photo was taken.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

I disagree with you completely. Without a doubt the mandibles angle in on both ILM models. The problem in seeing it though is that most front- view photos are taken too close to the model. From this position the laws of perspective trick the eye into seeing parallel lines. But there is a photo of the large Falcon taken further back with a zoom lens which reveals an unambiguous angling-in of the bows. This photo clinches it because it's taken from the front yet the lines of the mandibles move away from each other as they recede into the distance. See the in-depth article on Star Wars miniatures in 'Sci-Fi&Fantasy Modeller' volume 5, top of page 79. The photo below may help, though as it's taken from the back, it's contaminated by the natural convergence of perspective. Anyway, the tips of the mandibles on FM are an obscenely wide distance apart when compared with either miniature. See below. Note also that the upper and lower jaws are far more delicate on the originals.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

bigjimslade said:


> IMHO, the "cocked-in" in the first photo is due to the angle and perspective from where the photo was taken.


What about this angle, then?


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Honestly, I can't see the difference. Is it me??


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Yes, we can't see the mandibles being cocked-in because of you, Jose. 



Seriously, tho, I'm not seeing it either. Not in any of those photo's. I've always been under the impression that they were perpendicular.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I can see it pretty clearly in some photos... problem is I can't tell what model it is and if its the same one each time.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Griffworks and co.I'll give it one last shot. Take that last front-view photo. Hold a ruler to the screen, against one of your so-called parallel lines. Stick another ruler against the line of the other mandible. If in your view it then appears that your rulers are not converging towards the bottom, then there are clearly more ways of perceiving this universe than I thought! (It is impossible for two parallel lines to appear to move away from each other as they recede into space. But that is what the inner lines on these mandibles are doing in this photo.)


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Griffworks and co. I'll give it one last shot. Take that last front-view photo. Hold a ruler to the screen, against one of your so-called parallel lines. Stick another ruler against the line of the other mandible. If in your view it then appears that your rulers are not converging towards the bottom, then there are clearly more ways of perceiving this universe than I thought! (It is impossible for two parallel lines to appear to move away from each other as they recede into space. But that is what the inner lines on these mandibles are doing in this photo.)


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Griffworks said:


> Yes, we can't see the mandibles being cocked-in because of you, Jose.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, tho, I'm not seeing it either. Not in any of those photo's. I've always been under the impression that they were perpendicular.


 No, they're _parallel_.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Can't you all see how important it is for some people to be right and Fine Molds
to be wrong? Come on, they only got huge amounts of detail right on the kit, 
you can't expect them to get some minor item like a mandible toe-in 
correct?

Edge (tired of the extreme nit-pickers club)


----------



## MartinHatfield (Apr 11, 2004)

I didn't mean to start something here. I was just curious about the accuracy of the information. I love the FM Falcon as it is.


----------



## b26354 (Apr 11, 2007)

My MR falcon has significant toe-in. Click the link to see a largish pic.

MR_falcon_toe_in.jpg 

The jawbox also tapers on the same angle.

I bought the FM falcon before I got the MR so now I'll probably never build the FM. But despite it's inaccuracies the FM falcon is a stunningly engineered and detailed kit - like all FM products.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

God, will this issue NEVER go away? 

I've seen the original filming miniature(s) up close, and the mandibles do indeed taper in at a slight angle. This subtle bit of streamlining is apparent in Joe Johnston's working drawings (see _The Star Wars Sketchbook_), and it should probably have been incorporated into the Fine Molds kit.

Is it an inaccuracy worth fixing? That's for each model maker to decide for himself, but the question of how to go about it is a valid one.

For the record, I too get tired of nit-picking. Even so, one of the reasons a site like this exists is to shed a bit of light on the occasionally illusive subtleties of sci-fi hardware designs. If this slavish attention to detail frustrates you then I respectfully suggest you STAY AWAY FROM THE OFFENDING THREAD so it doesn't.

This is not a pissing match, so let's please not turn it into one.



b26354 said:


> ...despite it's inaccuracies the FM falcon is a stunningly engineered and detailed kit - like all FM products.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

John P said:


> No, they're _parallel_.


Uh... Yeah... I was... testing you guys. Yeah, that's it. Testing.


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

This will be debated forever..WHO CARES? The difference if there is one is VERY SLIGHT, IMO a mistake by the modelmakers aligning them slightly off when they built it! Do any of you notice this on ANY scenes in ANY of the movies???
Just an excuse to bash Fine Molds or say "AHA! I'm brilliant for spotting a mistake by the kit maker and I am going to build mine correct and show them up!"
There are so many POSITIVE and good sides to modelers and stunning talent out there. I have seen the pics of BEAUTIFUL Falcon build ups and those modelers aren't shaking their fists in rage. Geezz talk about the ultimate in freaking out over nothing!
Are 99.9% of anyone viewing the Falcon going to even NOTICE the mandible alignment? I think the only reason someone would ever say anything is that they "read it on the internet that it is wrong".
Think about it!
Gary


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

Maybe I can help end any fighting:

This link
Falcon Construction 
shows someone who is going for absolute accuracy on the Fine Molds Falcon, and in doing so one can see hundreds of inaccuracies in the kit (if one is going for perfect accuracy). It's been a while since I looked at the earlier entries, but he does address and fix the mandibles issue. There are many more issues to explore and take notes on from this guy. His site is my instruction book, and I'm just waiting for him to finish!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


> God, will this issue NEVER go away?
> 
> I've seen the original filming miniature(s) up close, and the mandibles do indeed taper in at a slight angle. This subtle bit of streamlining is apparent in Joe Johnston's working drawings (see _The Star Wars Sketchbook_), and it should probably have been incorporated into the Fine Molds kit.
> 
> ...


Definitely agreed on both counts. I can see where folks might get tired of seeing the same issues come up all the time - The Great Grid Debate and Color of the Original TOS E Filming Model, anyone? - and have myself gotten frustrated with these issues. I mean, there are times that some folks have argued over the definition of the word "IS", for goodness sake!. 

However, we all need to take a deep breath and repeat this line whenever we see someone asking a question we've heard almost literally a hundred times and it drives us nuts that 101st time we hear it: 

It's a hobby. Hobbies are supposed to be fun. If I read something that makes me angry or frustrates me, I will log off my 'puter and go work on a model, watch a movie or TV Show, spend quality time w/the wife/significant other and/or children or do anything that takes my mind off of whatever it is I just read on DaNet that's making me angry. 

I know we all let stuff get to us that's actually pretty stupid in the long run - trust me, been there and that an embarrassing number of times! - but we've got to stop and realize that just because some of us have been at these forums for a decade or more doesn't mean that someone else won't come up and ask a question or point something out that they weren't aware of before that point. Don't jump on them as if they kicked your puppy dog. Instead, educate them by giving them the info or even pointing them to a thread where it's been discussed before - which will help to educate them about the thought process that sometimes the Search Function is a good thing to use. 

Now, we return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of the angle of the dangle.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

spindrift said:


> This will be debated forever..WHO CARES? The difference if there is one is VERY SLIGHT, IMO a mistake by the modelmakers aligning them slightly off when they built it!


Sigh.

At the risk of repeating WHAT I JUST TYPED, the mandibles were designed to taper, a fact reflected in Joe Johnston's working drawings as seen in _The Star Wars Sketchbook_.



spindrift said:


> Geezz talk about the ultimate in freaking out over nothing!


I agree.

CALM DOWN. 

To quote Governor Tarkin, "This bickering is pointless."

Honestly, this is not a personal issue. If I got the feeling the author of this thread was attempting to "bash" Fine Molds just for the hell of it I'd tell him to can it, but such doesn't appear to be the case. 

Like it or not, see it or not, the taper of the mandibles does add a subtle bit of streamlining to the Falcon's profile, and I can understand why some builders would want to see this feature reflected in their models. Why anyone would take this as a personal affront is beyond me.



Griffworks said:


> It's a hobby. Hobbies are supposed to be fun.


What he said.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Gunstar1 said:


> Maybe I can help end any fighting:
> 
> This link
> Falcon Construction


Thanks for posting.

I've been following the above thread with interest, and I look forward to seeing the finished result.


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

OK OK if they are tapered and supposed to be that way it is very slight, correct? I mean SLIGHT. To fix it would be a pretty significent job,fine. My mistake on assuming that it was an original constructuion error.I think I 've just had enough of BASHING and that ALWAYS is injected in ANY topic discussion of inaccuracies of a model. I defy anyone to tell you a fictional vehicle that has several studio miniatures built of it IS THE EXACT same in proportions and details on any given model.
"they got it all wrong" - how many times do I have to read that....pick your subject...pick your model...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I'm sure many of us feel your pain, Spindrift. Still, in the interests of providing a forum through which model builders may improve or modify off-the-shelf kits to more faithfully represent a given subject, I think it's important we not shoot the messenger. Especially on those occasions when he happens to be right.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

I for one never wanted to 'nitpick' Fine Molds. I was in fact overwhelmed with joy in 2006 when I first saw the detail shots of the kit from Japan, but was dismayed the next minute when I saw something terribly wrong with the front of the ship. I didn't want there to be anything wrong, but there was. Yet I couldn't work out _what_ it was. It was as though the mandibles were splaying apart from one another. And I thought to myself, 'but shouldn't the mandibles be parallel?' Then I saw from a plan view of FM's Falcon that FM had indeed placed them parallel. So what was the problem? I then did some visual research on the net and discovered for the first time that the mandibles are not parallel at all, that they angle in. And although this angling in is slight, for me it is absolutely crucial, because I don't want something that hit me straight away as being terribly wrong to remain on my representation of the Falcon. If FM had to make them parallel I just wish to hell they'd placed them closer together. It's the huge gap between them that is unbearable.

As long as others like me come along and have this reaction the issue won't go away. The issue is alive with me because I paid a _lot_ of damn dough for this kit. I bought it as a calculated risk. I bought it for the beautiful detail, but with the hope that I could correct the bows. What really annoys me is the condescending attitude of the head of Fine Molds to the MPC kit, yet he can't put the mandibles on right, while MPC did. Detail aside, MPC's plan view is closer to the spirit of the ILM miniatures than FM's.


----------



## MartinHatfield (Apr 11, 2004)

Gunstar1 said:


> Maybe I can help end any fighting:
> 
> This link
> Falcon Construction


I too had been following Dana Jan's buildup blog. However, his last post "The Dishes are Done" was done on September 2. I e-mailed him earlier today in hopes of finding out why he hasn't posted in four months. I will let you guys know when I hear back from him.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

I'd just say to those who are annoyed by my choice of topic in this thread: why did you come in here to read it? The title of the topic shows clearly enough what's going on in here. I just wanted to find a kindred spirit who's found a way to remove and re-attach his mandibles, or someone who is interested in doing so, that we may swap ideas on how to go about it. Quite why this has led to the spats above is completely bewildering.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

gourounaki said:


> why this has led to the spats above is completely bewildering.


Whatever the reasons, let's let bygones be bygones. 

`Nuff said.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> I'm sure many of us feel your pain, Spindrift. Still, in the interests of providing a forum through which model builders may improve or modify off-the-shelf kits to more faithfully represent a given subject, I think it's important we not shoot the messenger. Especially on those occasions when he happens to be right.


I think whether he's right or wrong is still open for debate, but that's not the issue. Gourounaki believes the mandibles on the filming models are not parallel, and is merely asking for assistance in modifying his kit. Nothing wrong with that; it's his kit, and he can do what he wants with it. Unfortunately, with this kit, this question can't often be asked without it turning into "the great debate".

I haven't seen anything conclusive one way or the other and, quite frankly, I don't care; my life is already complicated enough--I don't need to add something so insignificant into the mix. When I feel my modeling skills are up to the task, I'm gonna build mine as-is and be satisfied. For anyone who wants to modify theirs, I say go for it and show us your results.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Zombie_61 said:


> I think whether he's right or wrong is still open for debate, but that's not the issue. Gourounaki believes the mandibles on the filming models are not parallel, and is merely asking for assistance in modifying his kit. Nothing wrong with that; it's his kit, and he can do what he wants with it. Unfortunately, with this kit, this question can't often be asked without it turning into "the great debate".
> 
> I haven't seen anything conclusive one way or the other and, quite frankly, I don't care; my life is already complicated enough--I don't need to add something so insignificant into the mix. When I feel my modeling skills are up to the task, I'm gonna build mine as-is and be satisfied. For anyone who wants to modify theirs, I say go for it and show us your results.


The only reason it got turned into a debate was 'cause people came in here to argue with me. If you don't care about this wretched mandible business, why not just stay away from mandible threads? As to the insinuation above that this issue is insignificant, well of course it is - _painfully _ insignificant -along with every single modelling issue you can think of, if you're going to bring the outside world into the equation. But I thought there was a tacit understanding here that it would be impolite to draw such a comparison. Anyway, I'm outa here. They're all sawing off mandibles over at SSM so I guess that's where I belong. Bye!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Are we forgetting that this is still, by far, the best model of the Falcon available? I think I'll just take a photo of mine with a long lens. That'll make them toe in!

While we're on the subject, has anybody heard if Fine Molds is doing any more Star Wars kits yet? Be nice if they made a Star Destroyer.


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

I did some digging yesterday and today to find some decent reference shots of the models. The only reliable images would be shot from directly, or almost directly above. Finding those shots are not easy. Lots of angle shots or extreme closeup which tend to distort views of the studio miniature. 

I found a couple online in various places, and theres a pretty good shot in the original Famous Spaceships book. Based on what I saw, I'd say there is a very slight angle. Personally, I think it's so minimal as to not worry about it. Close enough in my book.

Steve


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Hey, I got no stake in it either way, I'm just a searcer for the truth like everybody. It was Ed Bowkley (our own Diceman) told me there was no toe-in, and I respect him as knowing what he's talking about. On the other hand, some of the photos presented here convince me there was indeed toe-in on at least one of the models. Heck, even ILM model makers may not get everything even.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

We also forget that filming models are first and foremost props that are meant to look good through the camera. It's fun researching and comparing notes, but sometimes I think we are all guilty of nitpicking to some degree. The amount of toe in (IMHO) is so minor that I wonder if it was even deliberate on the part of the ILM model makers. Notice on the insert that comes with the kit of the photos of the studio model-It's hardly noticeable. Is it Earth shattering news for a modeler? I don't think so. Just more fun trivia.

I once new a guy that was into modeling-sort of. He collected as much info on a subject he was interested as he could get his hands on, and usually never build a damn thing! I think he would get so much documentation that finding all the little differences between the real thing and the kits became so daunting that it would just scare him away. I hope I never become like that in the quest to achieve 'perfection'.

Like the 'Nike' ads would say 'Just do it'.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

Yeah. Just go ahead and point those mandibles in. It's obvious in many of the shots that they are not parallel, and if you're inclined to do so, then do it. If not, well, I've seen couple of OOB builds that look fantastic.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

JeffG said:


> The amount of toe in (IMHO) is so minor that I wonder if it was even deliberate on the part of the ILM model makers.


There is evidence to suggest it was.



















IMHO this rather clunky design needs every iota of streamlining it can get. Of course, the rationale behind the so-called "toe-in" probably has more to do with implied scale than it does streamlining. Remember, these are the same guys who forced the perspective on the sides of the Stardestroyer so it would appear longer when viewed from bow to stern.

Argue the merits of tweaking the Fine Molds kit all you want, but don't tell me the MF's mandibles were parallel on the original FX miniature(s). I've seen these models in person, and I know better.


----------



## rossjr (Jun 25, 2001)

Build what you like and like what you build.

If you want to tear up a $200 model to toe in them in, go for it. It's your money and time....

Personally I'm going to build the kit the way I want to and you are welcome to do the same with yours!

Good Luck!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Toy makers don't care about scale or accuracy, model builders do.

For my money, accuracy is always the goal no matter how unobtainable it may be. However, with the help of members of BBs like "Hobbytalk", the goal moves closer to the obtainable for all of us. If you are one of the people who don't care, why argue with those of us who do?

This has always been the key challenge (and therefore the key attraction) of model building for me, the quest for "ultimate accuracy". Personally, I don't give a squat if it matters "in the real world" or not, meeting and over comming that challenge is what makes the hobby fun. Learning the details sufficiently well via painstaking research is also part of the fun, it is like a treasure hunt where the reward is knowledge rather than monetary gain.

So I say, nit-pick away! It helps me learn more!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

BTW, which of the studio miniatures is the FM kit based upon?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Pretty darn clear there, Carson. I'm convinced.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

That definitely works for me, as well. 

Still, I'm in the "don't much care" camp as I never noticed it prior to this thread. Guess I missed all those FineMolds Falcon threads at Starship Modeler somehow.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

To me it's a bit like the gentle taper of the TOS Enterprise nacelles (the same nacelles that failed to taper on the original AMT model kit release)... just one of those subtle details that might not have been apparent on the TV screen, but which makes the design that much more visually appealing when seen in person (to the extent the phrase "visually appealing" applies to the _Millennium Falcon_).


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Hey, she'll make point five past light speed, kid!


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

rossjr said:


> Build what you like and like what you build.
> 
> If you want to tear up a $200 model to toe in them in, go for it. It's your money and time....
> 
> ...


 The above is very good advice - whatever you decide, please build some version of the Falcon. But I can understand the "accuracy" debate and how it relates to the cost of the model. 

When you are buying a model, part of the cost is having the manufacturer do the research for you. They then decide how accurate they want the model to be taking into account manufacturing methods, etc. and then submit the final prototype to the Lucasfilm Licensing folks for approval. If the Lucasfilm folks thought that the toe-in of the mandibles would be such a critical factor for accuracy that customers would not buy it, they would have rejected the prototype. They didn't. So I can understand why, when a model is presented as the "most accurate" and then when you compare it to your references discover it isn't, it's annoying - you didn't get what you thought you were paying for. The options you have are send it back and get a refund, or do the major surgery to correct the inaccuracy - and most of us buy the kit to avoid having to do major surgery, it's cheaper to scratchbuild. 

I think that the FM Falcon is a nice piece of work, but I can modify and build a whole bunch of AMT/ERTL Falcons for the $200 that the FM version costs. Same thing with the MR Falcon - great model, but for the price I can build a couple of them. Ultimately, if you want a model to be as accurate as humanly possible, you have to be the human to research and scratchbuild it. 

BTW, the AMT/ERTL Falcon can be built to rival the FM Falcon - I've seen a version with the Voodoo FX lighting kit and scratchbuilt sidewalls that had ILM/Kerner Optical model builders take a long time deciding which kit it was.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

The toe-in may be slight but it has a _huge _ impact on the proportions of the ship (and this is why I noticed that FM's looked way out of kilter in the first place). Look: take a plan view of the 3-foot ILM ship, and a plan view of FM. If you measure the distance between the front outer corners of the mandibles you'll see that with ILM this value is about 25% of the width of the hull saucer. With FM it's _33%_. So you go from a quarter width on the nose dimension to a third width. That's one heck of a reduction in streamlining. A single degree of angle inaccuracy can play absolute hell with a shape. I bet if your door-frame was one degree out of line you'd want to do something about it. So it is with we Falcon-lovers. 

The photo below shows how whacked out of shape FM looks next to a Falcon with a correct mandible/ jawbox configuration. The gap between the bows should be barely wide enough for the cockpit-width to fit between. You can get about 1.3 cockpit-widths between FM's mandibles. The whole front of the thing is just hideously out of proportion. This is no 'nit'. I'm sorry to be heretical but FM needs a bash here, not least because AMT managed to satisfy on this point _30 years ago_.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

See below...


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

X15-A2 said:


> BTW, which of the studio miniatures is the FM kit based upon?


The three-foot one.


----------



## kylwell (Mar 13, 2004)

Actually it was the 5 footer.

Which has straight (or so close to being so as to not matter) mandibles.

The 3 footer has some many differences from the 5 footer as to no be funny.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

kylwell said:


> Actually it was the 5 footer.
> 
> Which has straight (or so close to being so as to not matter) mandibles.
> 
> The 3 footer has some many differences from the 5 footer as to no be funny.


What on earth are you on about? FM used the 3-foot job; it says so on the box. The accurate detailing that everyone is so in love with on the FM kit is to be seen on the 3-foot one, not on the five-foot one. God give me strength.

And the two ILM models have a lot of differences. I know. So?


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

You do realize if they're called mandibles they're probably meant to move.....

Therefore,the AMT and MR show the 'Falcon with the mandibles slightly closed, the FM shows the 'Falcon with the mandibles all the way open.


Case closed


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

I don't care to fantasize about the functions of some made-up spaceship. I want it to look like the stage model. 

And If you go back to the start of this thread you'll see that the purpose of it is to locate someone who has converted the mandibles and jawbox, so as to swap notes on how to do it. I'm not asking for anyone's permission to make the alteration or advice as to the advisability of such an intervention or to be diverted or converted by a mob of 'parallelists.'

I was directed to SSM but as yet no one over there has actually spilled the beans. 
Which means that I'm hanging around here to see if someone eventually pops up with the goods. You love FM's mandibles? Fine. So what the heck are you doing in here?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

1) Everybody chill out. *gourounaki*, I understand your frustration, but there's no need to getting ugly in your responses to folks. You're borderline TROLLING, whether you have that intention or not. 

2) Everyone else - if you don't have anything to add to *gourounaki's* request for info on folks who've altered their FineMolds Millenium Falcon kit or suggestions on how *gourounaki* might make said changes, please don't respond. You're taking the thread further off-topic, thus frustrating him further. I consider that baiting at this point. For those who don't understand what that means, baiting = TROLLING. 

3) *gourounaki* - since you've still got your PM's and email turned off I'll say this again publicly: watch the language. *Last warning.*


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Ow! My wrist hurts! But you're right of course. I think I'd better shut up until a cutter hoves into view...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

If there's a quick fix for correcting the angle of the FM mandibles I haven't found it. Cutting off the kit parts and reattaching them at an adjusted tangent would be a half measure at best, and therefore not worth the effort IMO (I say this after having spent a few minutes yesterday evening studying my unbuilt FM Falcon and comparing it with available reference data).

The solution, it seems to me, is fairly obvious: Hack off the offending parts and scratch together new ones from sheet styrene. The basic mandible shape is fairly straight forward; the trick would be salvaging as much surface detail from the original parts as possible. That detail which cannot be saved (of which there is relatively little IMO) could be retro-fitted from spru, Evergreen rod, and thin gauge styrene. The procedure would call for a certain amount of corrective seam filling and edge filing, but brain surgery it's not. 

I guess my take is if you're going to bother to make the modifications in the first place, you may as well go the distance and do the job right.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Thanks very much for this. I appreciate it. 

I already made a correctly (in my view) proportioned - or at least vastly improved - maquette of the upper jawbox. When held in front of the model, the effect was great - it really began to look like the original miniature. It was that excitement that encouraged me to look further into it. So I made a test of what was possible with the given mandibles by cutting them out of the large plan photo on the sheet insert, and then swinging them in to the right position. If you cut the jawbox down to the right size, they seem to fit in just right - the nose width becomes 25% of the hull width, as it should be. The drawback is that the lateral lines on the panels become angled in too, though I think I could live with that, or maybe there's a fix with filler and re-scribing. 

But the thing that really daunts me is getting the bows back onto the hull so that they're level and secure. This is what seems to have got everybody stopped over at SSM. I'm not that experienced at kit conversion so I too am extemely hesitant. However, I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man. And if it can be done, it would be great to do it, precisely because the kit _is_ so amazing in terms of detail. To have that beautiful detail combined with a better basic shape would be fabulous.

Thanks again for your input on the scratchbuild solution. I'll consider it carefully. Meanwhile if there's anyone out there who's been there and done it or has any suggestions, it would be nice to hear from you.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

gourounaki said:


> The drawback is that the lateral lines on the panels become angled in too.


Aye, there's the rub. If you can live with the wonky tagnet lines, great. If not, the time and effort required to re-scribe and re-align the newly off-kilter surface detail might be better spent on the scratching of replacement parts.



gourounaki said:


> ... the thing that really daunts me is getting the bows back onto the hull so that they're level and secure.


Here's a thought:

Find a firm, flat surface at least as big as the FM kit's lower hull half (e.g. a mirror or sheet of glass).

Get hold of some 1/16 sheet styrene and cut out a set of accurately sized and dimensioned mandible shapes. 

Separate the inaccurate mandibles from the lower hull half of the FM kit and place the trimmed hull inboard side down on the flat surface.

Align the underside sections of the replacement mandibles flat against the lower hull so the trailing edges are flush with the forward (trimmed) edge of the hull.

Lightly tack the lower mandibles in place from the inside with a few dots of CA glue.

Get hold of some fiberglass tape and resin.

Cut out a couple of strips of tape, place them over the inboard seams (overlapping both hull and mandible), and brush with resin. Although fiberglass resin cures hot, it also cures fast, and the kit styrene should be thick enough to withstand the process without warping. Obviously you'll want to test the process first on some scrap pieces of a similar thickness. If you find the hull needs reinforcing, build it up from the inside with additional bits of styrene.

Once the resin cures, the lower mandible shapes will be permanently and evenly bonded to the lower hull, providing a firm foundation upon which to construct the remaining mandible structure.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

I have a sincere question. For the purposes of this question, let's say the mandibles are not parallel and that there is a degree of toe-in. Is the entire mandible offset on each side, or only the two inner facing surfaces?

The reason I ask is this--rather than remove the entire mandible on both sides, is it feasible to modify only those two inner surfaces?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Unfortunately, no.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Why do you say that, Rob? I'm honestly curious as I thought that Zombie_61's question seemed like a pretty good fix. Or at least easier than having to cut the entire mandible section off.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Zombie_61 said:


> I have a sincere question. For the purposes of this question, let's say the mandibles are not parallel and that there is a degree of toe-in. Is the entire mandible offset on each side, or only the two inner facing surfaces?
> 
> The reason I ask is this--rather than remove the entire mandible on both sides, is it feasible to modify only those two inner surfaces?


^ I was wondering the same thing, Zombie.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

I think that would make the front of the mandibles look too big and chunky if you just adjusted the inner mandible walls.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Well, here's what I was thinking - and please keep in mind that I don't own the kit....

If there are inserts for the inboard sections of the mandibles, just sand as required and then add in at the appropriate angle, adjusting pieces/parts as required. If the inboard sections are a part of the hull, then cut out those sections, sand/cut/whatever as needed and then add those pieces back after adjusting as required. 

Again, I don't own the kit and have no clue what would work best, but that's just a thought off the top of my head.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Like I said before, quick fixes and half measures aren't worth the effort in this case (IMO) because, so far as I can determine, the results simply wouldn't look right. I really don't know how else to put it.

But hey, whadda I know.   

Good luck and Happy Building in any event.

:wave:


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

El Gato said:


> ^ I was wondering the same thing, Zombie.


If you go back through the thread a bit, at some point I tried to show why one unfortunately has to bring the whole mandible in. It's to do with the width between the outer corners of the mandible tips. That measurement should be about a quarter of the hull diameter. With FM it's nearer a third, making the ship look far clunkier than it should.

Griffworks, your fix idea was the first thing I looked at months ago, but combined with the idea of lengthening the mandibles so as to get closer to the 1/4 hull width on the front. Yet this lengthening also just looked too wrong. But thanks for wracking your brains for us!


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Carson Dyle, thanks so much for the scratch-mandible attachment plan you posted earlier. It_ is _ a thought... You gave me a lot to mull over there. I may even go with it, if I think I can scratch a decent enough level of detail. I'll play around with some styrene and see what happens. 

I'm still keener though on keeping the original mandibles if I can, because I think FM got the actual shape of each one virtually perfect - and recreating those panels at that scale does not look easy (for me anyway). And actually, if one kept the originals, it's only the lateral lines that would need to be filled and re-scribed, and there aren't in fact too many of them.

To get the original mandibles back on (after ripping out, rebuilding and replacing the jawbox, keeping only the jawbox roof but tapered to the right length and shape) I had thought of something like the following: 

Inside each hull-half, build up a level surface, which would be the plane of the upper mandible surface projected right back into the ship, as far as possible. Attach to this surface long lengths of stiff styrene or wood, really long so it goes through the ship as far as possible and sticks out the front as far as possible, and glue the mandible back onto this. 

Then obviously build out the mandible tips to correct the unwanted angling in that would occur here.

Again, I put out the call. Anyone else out there done it or got suggestions? And cheers again Carson for getting the ball rolling.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I have brains?  

Quick, tell my wife!


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

gourounaki said:


> If you go back through the thread a bit, at some point I tried to show why one unfortunately has to bring the whole mandible in. It's to do with the width between the outer corners of the mandible tips. That measurement should be about a quarter of the hull diameter. With FM it's nearer a third, making the ship look far clunkier than it should.
> 
> Griffworks, your fix idea was the first thing I looked at months ago, but combined with the idea of lengthening the mandibles so as to get closer to the 1/4 hull width on the front. Yet this lengthening also just looked too wrong. But thanks for wracking your brains for us!


Well, (for my part) it was just a thought. The kit doesn't look that far off to me, but you've obviously researched this extensively. Apparently, for true accuracy the entire mandible section must be modified. Back to the drawing board!



Griffworks said:


> I have brains?
> 
> Quick, tell my wife!


I hear ya' Griff...I'm in the same boat.


----------



## Tony Agustin (Nov 25, 1999)

I haven't posted here in years but I need to chime in here regarding the 'Great Falcon Mandible hoo ha'.

AMT/ERTL, Master Replicas and (gasp) Code3 got the taper right.

Finemolds got the taper wrong.

It's akin to having the nacelle struts on the Enterprise at the wrong angle. Sure it looks like the Enterprise but _something_ isn't quite right somehow.

That's what's happening with some of us Falcon fans when we see how Finemolds dropped the ball on this area. 

Now the mandibles are fixable but doing it brings on some problems. I removed the mandibles but found that by doing that, I found a second structural problem. The upper and lower jaw boxes are at the wrong angle as well and in turn needed to be removed, the bottoms thinned and reattached with a stronger taper into the fuselage. 

I haven't reattached the mandibles yet permanently yet but while dryfitting the parts to the newer angle that's where a third major problem reared it's ugly head. The inner mandible sides were touching the sides of the jaw boxes. Someone on SSM mentioned that the Jaw boxes need to be tapered on the sides as well. Instead I trimmed off the plastic in the inner areas adjacent to the 'jaw boxes' so they werent touching anymore.

I took some pictures and I'll see if I can load em up on Photobucket. They should be self explanatory without captioning.


----------



## Tony Agustin (Nov 25, 1999)

Darn it.
You guys have to start at page three to see the first pic.
There are no captions but all you need is an exacto knife, a razor saw and work slow to avoid marring the surface details.

http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/TonySA/Finemolds Falcon Mandible Removal/


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Very easy to follow along, regardless Tony. Thanks for posting that. 


BTW, good to see you posting here again. I hope you'll pop in here a bit more often.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Yes, many thanks. It was a delight to see the things finally come together at last. I'll be poring over your photos closely.

A while back I had noticed the jawboxes need a good pruning before any mandible re-alignment can be done. They need trimming not only in the horizontal plane, but the vertical too. FM put them on at a much too shallow slope, which is why the 'mouth' looks so thick (another thing that's bugged me right from the first). So, yes, I'm considering taking the whole jawbox out, all the way back to the gun platform, and replacing it with a scratchbuilt one, which would incorporate the original jawbox roof (so as not to lose the detail), but tapered and shortened. Then, a steeper and more characteristic slope of the jawbox down to the bows can be made during re-attachment. It also gives you the chance to correct the over-steep angle of the narrow side-walls of the jawbox. I'd re-attach it by fixing it to a thick styrene support cradle built into the hull. 

As I mentioned above somewhere, I already made a rough styrene maquette of a better-shaped jawbox, and when placed on top of the old one the improvement is just tremendous. And further, when imagined in place, it's clear there'd be a vast improvement to the side view of the ship, quite apart from the mandible issue. The cockpit re-asserts its proper dominance over the ship. 

I'll try and post a photo at some point.


----------



## Tony Agustin (Nov 25, 1999)

I'm glad to help. Looking forward to what you do to your kit, because I probably won't be getting back to mine for a while.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Well, yeah, that's the thing... actually getting round to doing it! A whole other issue completely...


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

JeffG said:


> I once new a guy that was into modeling-sort of. He collected as much info on a subject he was interested as he could get his hands on, and usually never build a damn thing! I think he would get so much documentation that finding all the little differences between the real thing and the kits became so daunting that it would just scare him away. I hope I never become like that in the quest to achieve 'perfection'.


Sounds like somebody I know 

I saw the 5ft. Falcon about 2 weeks ago and it looks angled to me.

Aside from a pure top view, one way to 'prove' it is to photograph the falcon from the front, at a distance (perhaps about 5-10ft) where the inner mandible walls just become not visible from the view finder. The rules of perspective then damand that they taper inward. 

If the walls were parallel, then one could not step far enough back to not see the inner walls.

I didn't think about it at the time to take this particular picture. But perhaps where ever the Star Wars tour goes next could photograph it and 'prove' it.

There are a few downloadable photos out there that basically show this.

While its a little strange seeing the parallel ones on the FM kit, fixing it is a little beyond what I'm willing to risk on this expensive kit.

What someone is willing to put into their kit is up to them and more power to them. But unless your trying to duplicate ONLY the 3 footer, there is room for interpatation on this subject since there is more than one studio model and more than one full size set.
I like a little from here and a little from there and thats how I've been doing mine.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

For anyone interested in what may be possible in terms of a full mandible/ jaw overhaul I've posted a photo below showing a rough styrene maquette of a tapered and better proportioned jawbox sitting in place on my tacked-together kit (see my last post for more info on this). Sitting on the mandibles are two strips of styrene roughly indicating the toe-in. On the inner walls of the mandibles is a lot of tacked-on junk, just to fill the gap a bit so I can live with looking at the thing on my desk till I'm ready to cut.


----------



## Richard38 (Apr 16, 2002)

gourounaki

Although I do not have that kit I agree that the stock jaws look to wide and your proposed angling looks reasonable to me. I really like the new jawbox as well even if it is just a temporary version it looks good!

Richard


----------



## PetarB (Feb 5, 2007)

I wish I never saw this thread.
I REALLY WISH I NEVER SAW THIS THREAD!!!
Cause I'm looking at those pics and seriously considering whether I should try and 'fix' my FMMF. There is a definite inward taper.
I built almost nothing but resin in 2007. I was hoping that 2008 would be just a shake-n-bake year with a couple of mostly styrene kits.
Damn you Gourounaki! Now I really have to take a second look at my unbuilt FMMF kit...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Clearly there's a fair amount of work (i.e. fun) involved, but from this model builder's perspective the corrected lines are worth the extra effort. We all know the _Falcon_ has moxie in spades, but from a purely cosmetic standpoint the old girl needs all the help she can get.


----------



## kylwell (Mar 13, 2004)

PetarB said:


> I wish I never saw this thread.
> I REALLY WISH I NEVER SAW THIS THREAD!!!
> Cause I'm looking at those pics and seriously considering whether I should try and 'fix' my FMMF. There is a definite inward taper.
> I built almost nothing but resin in 2007. I was hoping that 2008 would be just a shake-n-bake year with a couple of mostly styrene kits.
> Damn you Gourounaki! Now I really have to take a second look at my unbuilt FMMF kit...


I keep telling people, it's accurate. The person who measured the 5 footer says it's accurate (and accurate to the 5 footer, not the 3 footer) and he's the only person I know who has the knowledge to say so.

But, if you really want to hack apart a $200 model....


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

The pre release buzz was that it was based on the 3 footer.
HLJ says FM's Prez says it is based on the three footer
http://www.hlj.com/product/FNMSW-06
Regardless, Dyle says both/all have narrowing inner mandible walls.
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2216119&postcount=19


----------



## kylwell (Mar 13, 2004)

Slight is right.

Like half a degree or less.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Well, the taper of the TOS Enterprise nacelles could also be described as "slight," but it certainly makes a significant difference in the vessel's profile. In any case it's more than "half a degree or less" (help me out here gorounaki; something tells me you've done the math). 

If you don't want to make the correction don't make it. I couldn't care less one way or the other -- but those who insist there's no correction to make, despite clear and repeated evidence to the contrary, simply don't know what they're talking about.



chiangkaishecky said:


> The pre release buzz was that it was based on the 3 footer. HLJ says FM's Prez says it is based on the three footer. Regardless, Dyle says both/all have narrowing inner mandible walls.


Hell, don't take my word for it. 

Finding decent reference material of this relentlessly documented spaceship is not exactly like locating the Holy Grail. One need only look as far as pg. 95 of _The Star Wars Chronicles_ to find a good overhead shot of the original ("5 foot") _ Falcon_ miniature, along with an accompanying ILM blueprint insert on the following page. Both images clearly depict mandibles which exhibit the same inward taper found on the three foot model subsequently built for _Empire_.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Carson Dyle said:


> chiangkaishecky said:
> 
> 
> > The pre release buzz was that it was based on the 3 footer. HLJ says FM's Prez says it is based on the three footer. Regardless, Dyle says both/all have narrowing inner mandible walls.
> ...


I think he agrees with you that there's a taper. I think the disagreement is whether the FMMF was based on the 3' or the 5'. 

Personally, I'm saying mine is based on the dime-sized MF model, seen as "attached" to the Star Destroyer in _Empire._ You try telling me there's a taper on _that_ model_... :lol: :tongue:_


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

El Gato said:


> I think the disagreement is whether the FMMF was based on the 3' or the 5'.


I'm confused; who's saying the FMMF is based on the five footer? Cuz if that's the case FM botched the job even worse than critics are alleging.


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

Carson Dyle said:


> Hell, don't take my word for it.


Who's arguing with you, hairtrigger?
Kylwell says FM's mandible gap doesn't taper 'cause it's based on the 5' ... so I says it's based on the 3'.
Kylwell says he has a "source" that claims the 5' doesn't have the gap taper so I counter that it doesn't matter which model FM based its replica, another source (namely you) say the both/all model have the taper.
Wanna throw in a "Rosie O'Donnell's fat too!" into this imagined slight, Trumpy?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

"imagined slight" is right.

My comment was not aimed at you personally, but at those who maintain the mandibles of the large _Falcon_ miniature don't taper in. 

BTW, coming from you the "Trumpy" crack is a stitch.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

*Warning for TROLLING, chiangkaishecky. You could have made the same point without the condescending tone and name calling.*


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Carson Dyle said:


> I'm confused; who's saying the FMMF is based on the five footer? Cuz if that's the case FM botched the job even worse than critics are alleging.


Assertions (in this thread and others) have been made that FM based their model on the 5-footer. Gouronaki, chiangkaishecky and you have replied that the measurements are based on the 3-footer.


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

Carson Dyle said:


> My comment was not aimed at you personally, ...


Why quote me before your reply then?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I took Rob to be addressing the point that you made, not you directly. And yes, that's being honest when I was reading what he said, not taking his side over yours because's he's a Moderator. That's how the post reads to me, tho I can see how you might read it as being directed solely at you. 

Regardless, let's move on, please.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

chiangkaishecky said:


> Why quote me before your reply then?


I was merely commenting on the substance of what you posted, and cutting and pasting the quote saved me the time of having to re-type the comment word-for-word. If you’ll recall, you had referenced me in your original comment, and I felt obliged to reply. I certainly wasn’t trying to shame, bait, or trump you, and if you read it that way I apologize.



El Gato said:


> Assertions (in this thread and others) have been made that FM based their model on the 5-footer. Gouronaki, chiangkaishecky and you have replied that the measurements are based on the 3-footer.


While I can’t speak for gorounaki (much less the other fellow you mention), I’ve never laid claim to any "insider knowledge" re: which FX miniature FM based their model on. What I _have_ asserted is that both ILM’s three footer and five footer exhibit a similar degree of toe-in, which kinda renders the point moot as far as this insanely tedious debate is concerned.

BTW Jose, that mini-Falcon you mentioned? It has the same toe-in.

Honestly, am I the only guy on this thread who has a copy of_ The Star Wars Chronicles?_ The proof of is all right there, all you have to do is look.


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

Carson Dyle said:


> ...if you read it that way I apologize.


Nope.

Turns out I'm the hairtrigger and the onus to apologize falls on me.
You quoted me 'cause you're saying if people didn't believe what I said you said they can convince themselves with the myriad of reference out there.

I SINCERELY apologize to you and Griff.

I'm outta here 'til I improve my reading comprehension.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


> *>SNIPPERAGE<*
> 
> Honestly, am I the only guy on this thread who has a copy of_ The Star Wars Chronicles?_ The proof of is all right there, all you have to do is look.


Well, I don't own it and nobody locally that I'm aware of has it, unfortunately. When it originally came out I literally could not afford it. It's OOP now, right? I'll keep an eye out for it, but tho I have a more disposable income at this time I can't afford "collectors' prices" if the thing is too much more than cover.




chiangkaishecky said:


> Nope.
> 
> Turns out I'm the hairtrigger and the onus to apologize falls on me.
> You quoted me 'cause you're saying if people didn't believe what I said you said they can convince themselves with the myriad of reference out there.
> ...


It's all good, man. We all have those days. I just have to enforce the rules, so it's nothing personal. 

Don't feel you have to leave, if only for a while. You've usually got some interesting info that nobody else has to share and I'd hate to see you leave.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Carson Dyle said:


> While I can’t speak for gorounaki (much less the other fellow you mention), I’ve never laid claim to any "insider knowledge" re: which FX miniature FM based their model on. What I _have_ asserted is that both ILM’s three footer and five footer exhibit a similar degree of toe-in, which kinda renders the point moot as far as this insanely tedious debate is concerned.


Please understant that my post from 3 hours ago has nothing to do with "insider knowledge." It was only indicating that there wasn't a disagreement between you and 'shecky on whether there was a toe-in on 3 or 5 footer ILM model. In fact, both of you agree that there _is_ a toe-in on both. 

My post was to clarify that someone keeps asserting that the FM Falcon is based on the 5-footer... and both of you (and gorounaki) agree that it was based on the 3-footer. That's really the extent of my "argument" (though in really I wasn't arguing, then or now). In summary, you and 'shecky are in agreement on the toe-in and on which ILM model was used for the FMMF measurements. 

On other matters, well let's just say you're not in agreement and I can't help you on that... 

I'm going to drop this because there's nothing to see here.



Carson Dyle said:


> BTW Jose, that mini-Falcon you mentioned? It has the same toe-in.


A toe-in on a dime-sized model? Are you kidding me? Did they use an electron microlaser to cut that toe-in out?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

chiangkaishecky said:


> I SINCERELY apologize to you and Griff. I'm outta here 'til I improve my reading comprehension.


No harm no foul. The level of geeky inanity displayed on this thread would make anyone cross-eyed.



El Gato said:


> A toe-in on a dime-sized model? Are you kidding me? Did they use an electron microlaser to cut that toe-in out?


It probably helped that the “dime-sized” _Falcon_ miniature seen riding on the back of the Stardestroyer in _Empire_ was actually two inches long. 










All it took to replicate the toe-in was a steady hand, a sharp X-acto, and enough common sense to take a look at the other miniatures (and blueprints) before putting blade to plastic.

Here's a shot of the (still incomplete) five footer from _Star Wars_...









Is the toe-in there? Yes. Is is slight? Yes. Does it matter? To me it does, but that's just me. I can certainly understand why some would prefer not to bother to make the fix, and I respect their right not to do so.  

Okay, enough debating. Start building! :thumbsup:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

If nothing else, the one bit of detail that shows me the FM Falcon is based on the three-foot filming model is the bulbous whatever-it-is on the outer wall of the starboard mandible (just forward of the cockpit); this was not present on the five-foot model.

Also, I'd like to say that after reading this thread and viewing the comparison photos, particularly Gourounaki's photo of the rough preliminary modifications he's made, I'm now convinced the mandibles on the filming miniatures are tapered--it's a very slight taper, only a few degrees at most, but I now believe it's there. Still, I won't be making this modification when I finally decide to build my FM Falcon; with my meager skills, the thought of building a $200 kit with 900+ parts is daunting enough.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Carson, it looks like you could've done with a hand while I was away doing _Other Things_! By the way thanks for posting that overhead photo - I've never seen it before.

My input on the above exchanges:

I would've thought it's very easy to see which model FM's kit is based on, because all the side-wall detail corresponds to the 3-foot one, and none of the side-wall detail corresponds to the 5-foot version. And it also says so on the box. 

As I've said repeatedly, the reason the slight angling-in is so important is the knock-on effect it has on a _very_ important dimension of the ship: the nose width, i.e. the distance between the two _outer corners _ of the mandibles. On both ILM models this comes to about a quarter of the hull diameter, with FM it's closer to a _third,_ a huge distortion which, along with the over-wide jawbox, wrecks the streamlining and throws out the idiosyncratic balance of the ship by drastically reducing the assertive power of the cockpit, so crucial to Johnston's original design.

It's precisely _because_ the kit cost 200$ that I want to make the changes. I didn't pay 200$ to get hellishly irritated by the thing every time I look at it!


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Carson Dyle said:


> It probably helped that the “dime-sized” _Falcon_ miniature seen riding on the back of the Stardestroyer in _Empire_ was actually two inches long.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I could've swon I read the dime-sized thing in one of my (very small) collection of SW FX books, convinced someone lied to me. But a quick comb over them last night revealed two things:

1) I couldn't find the reference again; and

2) People should be free to disregard any of my posts when it comes to Star Wars stuff. I've been corrected twice on two separate threads. Clearly, I have no idea what I'm talking about.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Forgot to post this earlier, but I found it in the _Star Wars Chronicles_ book and thought it might be of interest to _Falcon_ fans...










The development and construction process of the _Star Wars _models was very fluid in terms of the way the model makers and illustrators worked together in steps. This blueprint, for example, was drawn after construction had already commenced in order to show how pre-selected kit-bashed model parts would intermingle with parts custom fabricated for the model. 

So much for the model makers just yanking parts out of a box and gluing them on willy-nilly. A lot of thought went in to determining how this stuff would be integrated, and a lot of the problem-solving happened on paper.

The drawing also refutes the suggestion that the mandible toe-in was some sort of model-making accident.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

The above drawings also show where AMT probably got their huge sidewalls and low cockpit from. Blindness probably had nothing to do with it. In all likelihood they simply made an accurate-enough representation of what Lucasfilm gave them to work from - these two drawings. If they'd been given a side view drawing that more closely resembled the actual model, what a great kit the old AMT one could have been. 

But if this explains AMT's inaccuracies, what lies behind Finemolds'? I mean what was it? Did Lucasfilm insist on a level of inaccuracy? If not, how could such expert toolmakers and engineers get so many measurements so wrong, when their aim was to better AMT? I find this all rather mysterious actually - even my girlfriend thinks so (yes, I'm in the blessed position of having a girlfriend who's actually _interested _ in this stuff!).


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

My apologies in advance to anyone irritated by the revival of this thorny topic, but I found a very curious and very interesting promotional photo of Fine Molds' Falcon. It's interesting because the image appears to have been doctored to trim off the upper jawbox so that the model more closely resembles the filming miniature than the kit does in reality. In the actual kit that jawbox line comes almost as high as the top of the cockpit nose - but it's nowhere near that in this photo.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

gourounaki said:


> My apologies in advance to anyone irritated by the revival of this thorny topic, but I found a very curious and very interesting promotional photo of Fine Molds' Falcon. It's interesting because the image appears to have been doctored to trim off the upper jawbox so that the model more closely resembles the filming miniature than the kit does in reality. In the actual kit that jawbox line comes almost as high as the top of the cockpit nose - but it's nowhere near that in this photo.


I'll reply to myself here and save anyone else the bother. The flattering profile of the upper jawbox is probably down to the angle the photo was taken. I thought it was a dead-on side elevation but it's actually slightly from below, and would cause a flattering obscuration of the over-sized upper jawbox. Sorry for wasting everyone's time, and full apologies to Fine Molds.


----------



## Ryder (May 12, 2008)

*Serious*

I will add my weight to those that see this as a serious flaw... and I am not a modeling perfectionist... I like a done kit.

But for me, I noticed it instantly, and knew exactly what the flaw was. It would be as if they used a cylinder for the main hull instead of a curved surface... to me it was blatant.

It is also clearly designed with a taper by Johnston (an aquaintance of mine) and I have seen the models in person... the taper is very real, very intentional and a very bad mistake that, to my knowledge, no other falcon model company has ever made.

(cheap toys excluded)

My thinking was that perhaps Finemolds decided to take the easy way out on the molding process, and needed to remove the taper to save $$$ on the molding die.... hoping nobody would notice.

I hope that is not the case.

For me, it is so serious, that I have not started the model, and I lothe having to deal with this issue.

When a model costs this much, this large of a mistake is, to my mind, unacceptable.

*sigh*

Ryder


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

I agree that it is a major flaw, along with the upper and lower jaw boxes, but I don't think that it is going to be terrible to fix - you have to cut at that point anyway so you get the space in between the curved hull plating and the mandibles - kills 2 birds with one stone.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

I'm making some good progress on this fix now. Use the link below for pictures of a dry-fit of a separated and re-positioned port mandible, and a styrene maquette of a more correctly proportioned jawbox:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/colindroidmilker/


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Looking good. :thumbsup:

Hat's off to your quest for the "perfect" mandible tangent.


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

So the jawboxes are so imperfect in width? I see your mock-up has a narrower front in width as well as height... even with correcting the mandibles I thought that the proportions on width would still hold..... (I just want to avoid resurfacing if I have to - it would be nice to preserve the detail, but then again, I will be hyper-accurizing the whole surface anyway. what the heck. that's the fun part anyway!)


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Yes, the jawboxes have to come in a heck of a lot. Otherwise you can't get the mandibles in to the right position. 

But there's another reason, too. 

ILM Falcon cockpits are _never, ever_ smaller than the jawbox front width. One can see this pretty clearly just watching the films; there's no need to go poring over millions of reference photos.

Yet no Falcon kit manufacturer has ever noticed this. { EXCEPT REVELL ! I just checked one on Youtube and it has the best cockpit/ jawbox ratio I've ever seen on a Falcon kit. Of course the kit has many problems: thoroughly inferior detail, the same high AMT sidewalls, but Revell had their eyes open when they measured that cockpit and jawbox width}

A golden rule for manufacturers of this kit should be that the cockpit diameter always be equal to or slightly bigger ( for the 5-footer) than the jawbox front width/mandible gap. Nevertheless, despite getting their hands on a studio model, Fine Molds went off in the exact opposite direction, making the jawbox front width _7mm wider _than the cockpit - a massive error at 1/72 scale, and a bigger discrepancy even than AMT.

The reason I'm absolutely _insisting_ on this geometry in my build is because of the negative impact a too-wide jawbox has on the cockpit presence. A fat jawbox steadies the ship too much, reducing the funky sideways lurch caused by the cockpit - the cockpit gets reduced to a mere appendage; it loses status as the focal point of the ship. 

In FM's case I'm more-or-less satisfied they've at least got the cockpit diameter right. So it's the jawbox that takes the correction, or rather gets rebuilt entirely, so off-beam were FM with this. 

As to the detail, I plan to incorporate trimmed down FM jawbox topsides into the new jawboxes.

Carson, thanks for your kind words.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

For pictures of latest work on the modification: http://www.flickr.com/photos/colindroidmilker/


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Great work:thumbsup:

I can't wait to see how it finishes out!


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Great work:thumbsup:
> 
> I can't wait to see how it finishes out!


Cheers. But please don't laugh if the whole thing winds up in the trash...!


----------



## Ryder (May 12, 2008)

Hey Gourounaki... It's been a year or so since you were working on fixing the FM mess with the mandables... I'd love to hear how the process went... how you strengthened the new section and jaw box. 

Thanks!


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

Bump! Same here, where is the Falcon nowadays?


----------



## Jiver (Jul 18, 2009)

It's funny how this is beginning to sound like those armor builders who can discuss as much as a missing bolt on a model.They will aventually run their own hobby into the ground, just a matter of patience.I hope sincerely scifi is not going on the same road


----------

