What scale is the 5 foot Millennium Falcon?

I recall adding things up a couple years ago and finding that a 136' ship is too big to match the 1:1 soundstage cockpit sets.


IMO those cockpit sets are the most crucial interlock of the interior & exterior sets. Cockpits are usually the best place to find a match in general. But in the Falcon's case the cockpit also gets a ton of close-quarters screen time. And aside from that depth addition in ESB it didn't get changed very much over the course of 3 movies.

So, take the ILM 5ft model and scale it up until the cockpit sets fit right. Whatever that is, it's the closest to a correct scale we can get IMO. I can't recall the number now but I think it was more like 114' than 136'.

The rest of the soundstage interiors probably won't fit quite right that way. But those are not entirely reconcilable with the exterior not matter what size you pick. If they're close then I say go with it. The only other option is to change the exterior's proportions.
 
You may be right, never looked at the cockpit sets in a ton of detail. They're a 10' diameter like the TIE cockpit, IIRC, right?
 
I checked the set drawings, the max interior diameter of the cockpit tube was about 9.1' so a 10' exterior seems pretty reasonable. I concede that approach does give less than 115' total length, in fact going by the BMB drawings, I'm getting 111'.

Sooooo the interior sets are also underscaled, just not as badly. :lol Seriously, your approach is as valid as any.

- - - Updated - - -

cavx, that'd be very slightly over-scale for the interior diameter, but I doubt it'd be noticeable.
 
Doing the math - it seems like 5.75" is the decided diameter of the cockpit tube on the 5ft ILM model. Scaled up x 24 = 11.5' cockpit tube on the 1:1 scale ship.

Figuring on a 5'8" (68") length for the ILM model + a 10.0' soundstage exterior cockpit = I'll spare you the math but it lands near the 114' total ship length number. It points to the 5ft ILM minature being roughly 1/20th scale.



Trivia:

-- As other people have pointed out over the years, this makes the original 5ft ILM model almost precisely the correct size to match the classic Star Wars toy action figures. (No wonder they always under-sized the MF toys a bit!)

-- If the ANH set builders had kept the ILM model's original (oversize 136') scale, the toy action figures would match a toy MF that is roughly 82" with a 57" dish diameter.

-- So what is a "correct" size 1/24th scale miniature Falcon, for a 114' full scale ship? In hindsight the original ILM model should have been 4'8" (56") long, with the 48" dish diameter reduced to 40".
 
Last edited:
WOW I cannot believe that everyone is still debating and doing math about a subject that has been scrutinized extensively since the movie came out in 77. You all really need to check into the work of Robert Brown and the Ship of Riddles site. It's because of him we actually have a scale for the Falcon to begin with... and it took him close to 20 years to come up with the data!
 
I’m not debating it. Perhaps my earlier post bears re-reading, or reading in the first place if anyone skipped over it. My determination of 64 inches for the base length of the “5-footer” is quite accurate, and has been verified and beaten to death in long dead and gone threads on other BBs. The only real variables are the lengths of the frontmost and rearmost greeblies, and the positioning of the rearmost greeblies. And my estimates of those are really freaking close.

Mark


WOW I cannot believe that everyone is still debating and doing math about a subject that has been scrutinized extensively since the movie came out in 77. You all really need to check into the work of Robert Brown and the Ship of Riddles site. It's because of him we actually have a scale for the Falcon to begin with... and it took him close to 20 years to come up with the data!
 
I’m not debating it. Perhaps my earlier post bears re-reading, or reading in the first place if anyone skipped over it. My determination of 64 inches for the base length of the “5-footer” is quite accurate, and has been verified and beaten to death in long dead and gone threads on other BBs. The only real variables are the lengths of the frontmost and rearmost greeblies, and the positioning of the rearmost greeblies. And my estimates of those are really freaking close.

Mark

So basically you're trying to get the numbers down to the micromillimeter scale so that everything is accurate and precise. I thought I had OCD! Ok... so... copying my post from post #4 on this matter... here is the same information that seems to be overlooked:

So far the Robert Brown numbers are most accepted and agreed upon numbers for the size of the original 1:1 scale ship. So here's how you calculate the scale. If the length of the ship is 114' long, and you want to find out the scale of the 5' model you divide 114 by 5 and get a result of 22.8 or roughly 1/23 scale. Now that's a rough estimate based on the assumption that the 5 footer is actually 5 feet long. According to the number above it was 68 inches long which means 5.67 feet So using that number up divide 114 by 5.67 and you get 20.11 or 1/20 scale. Scale basically means if you were take the scaled down version, and place 20 of them end to end you would equal the length of the full scale version. Scale numbers are usually rounded to the nearest whole number. Because it's easier to say 1/20th scale then to say 1/20.11th scale. But basically it all depends on the numbers you are looking at. And as you can see... the difference of only 8 inches is the difference between 1/23rd and 1/20th scale.​
And from post #13

From the 114 foot “full size” length I choose to be correct, and my estimate of 64.539625 inches for the “5-footer” length, I calculate a scale of 1/21.1962805795664.

So... if you want to be a stickler, and go with the actual length of the 5'footer with the greeblies on each end you're looking at a actual length of 64.539625 making the scale 1:21.19628057897664 precisely. Does that solve the issue anymore or should I provide photo evidence?
 
Hmmm . . . .

Here's a much simpler way to say all this:


68" ILM model: 1/20

64" ILM model: 1/21



I have no personal opinion about the actual length of the ILM model. I am only crunching other people's numbers.

Even if 64" is absolutely the right number, I think the 68" figure is repeated often enough that it's better to keep mentioning both computed scales, just for clarity. For example, if we were to only repeat the figure that the ship is 1/21 scale, and somebody hears that but is also working with the 68" length figure, that just breeds more confusion.
 
Last edited:
I believe that it was Fine Molds that had exclusive access to the 5 footer when they came out with their Falcon model and they did accurate measurements and discovered the length was exactly 64.539625 inches (that's with the greeblies).
 
I believe that it was Fine Molds that had exclusive access to the 5 footer when they came out with their Falcon model and they did accurate measurements and discovered the length was exactly 64.539625 inches (that's with the greeblies).

Bizarre,....and the FM Falcon is based on the 32",....I'd have preferred if they would have made their model on the 5 footer

....and it is worth noting that their measurements & dimensions of the 32" was a complete balls up

J
 
Bizarre,....and the FM Falcon is based on the 32",....I'd have preferred if they would have made their model on the 5 footer

J

I know there was some company recently that has access to the 5 footer... can't remember who thou. Thought it could have been Fine Molds. Do you remember J?
 
I honestly don't know Lrd,....I know that the new digital Falcon that we've seen in the Teasers is of the 5 footer,......lets hope those files have been given to Bandai

J
 
Yeah, for better or worse we probably have a single permanent MF design moving forward. Modern filmmaking & merchandising does not tolerate the kind of fast & loose inconsistencies that the MF had back in the day. They would have wanted everyone working from a single detailed 3D file for the whole exterior at the very least.
 
So basically you're trying to get the numbers down to the micromillimeter scale so that everything is accurate and precise. I thought I had OCD! Ok... so... copying my post from post #4 on this matter... here is the same information that seems to be overlooked:

So far the Robert Brown numbers are most accepted and agreed upon numbers for the size of the original 1:1 scale ship. So here's how you calculate the scale. If the length of the ship is 114' long, and you want to find out the scale of the 5' model you divide 114 by 5 and get a result of 22.8 or roughly 1/23 scale. Now that's a rough estimate based on the assumption that the 5 footer is actually 5 feet long. According to the number above it was 68 inches long which means 5.67 feet So using that number up divide 114 by 5.67 and you get 20.11 or 1/20 scale. Scale basically means if you were take the scaled down version, and place 20 of them end to end you would equal the length of the full scale version. Scale numbers are usually rounded to the nearest whole number. Because it's easier to say 1/20th scale then to say 1/20.11th scale. But basically it all depends on the numbers you are looking at. And as you can see... the difference of only 8 inches is the difference between 1/23rd and 1/20th scale.​
And from post #13

From the 114 foot “full size” length I choose to be correct, and my estimate of 64.539625 inches for the “5-footer” length, I calculate a scale of 1/21.1962805795664.

So... if you want to be a stickler, and go with the actual length of the 5'footer with the greeblies on each end you're looking at a actual length of 64.539625 making the scale 1:21.19628057897664 precisely. Does that solve the issue anymore or should I provide photo evidence?

Nah, I didn’t overlook your post #4, nor any others for that matter. You said that you couldn’t believe “*everyone* is still debating…”, which prompted me to say “I’m not debating it.” And in reading my post #13, my very 1st sentence (“If you are interested in a scale to a “real life” sized Falcon AND want to be real nit-pickky about it (i.e., a rivet counter), below is my take on the scale”) sets the tone for the rest of that post.

I wasn’t actually taking exception with anything you said beyond the “*everyone* is still debating…” in post #27. The very next sentence of my post included the words “if *anyone* skipped over it” was meant to be for the readership in general, not you personally.

Missing from post #13 was the fact that I have extremely high confidence in the 64" total base length, so I decided to add it in post #27, and gave my reasons for it. I have never had access to the “5-footer”, so there will always be a margin of doubt. Because of that, I have no real reason to contest you or anyone for believing the real length is 68". However, given my long history with this beast and the independent verifications I’ve been fortunate to get, I personally believe the 68" published value is not correct. Could I be wrong? Maybe, but I don”t think so.

Mark
 
I believe that it was Fine Molds that had exclusive access to the 5 footer when they came out with their Falcon model and they did accurate measurements and discovered the length was exactly 64.539625 inches (that's with the greeblies).

Really! Now that is news to me! If you’re not pulling my leg, then perhaps Fine Molds’ efforts have independently confirmed my efforts. Huh.

Mark
 
Bizarre,....and the FM Falcon is based on the 32",....I'd have preferred if they would have made their model on the 5 footer

....and it is worth noting that their measurements & dimensions of the 32" was a complete balls up

J

You’re right. This one escapes me…FM had access to the “5-footer”, even went to the trouble to measure the thing, yet decided to make the 32 incher and couldn’t get it right…er, like you said.

Mark
 
You’re right. This one escapes me…FM had access to the “5-footer”, even went to the trouble to measure the thing, yet decided to make the 32 incher and couldn’t get it right…er, like you said.

That's what I thought... I knew that DeAgo (Steve Dymszo) had exclusive access to the 32" incher and was the first to have ever used a scanner to get exact measurements. The Fine Molds team on the other hand had access to the 5' Footer and even thou they did accurate measurements of the 5' footer ended up doing a 32" incher instead using the 5' footer measurements as a base, which kinda threw all of the measurements out of whack and caused the famous Fine Molds Mandible "toe-in" problem. But regardless that original measurement of 64.539625 inches for the length (which included the greeblies on the front and back) is probably the best measurement for discovering scale. I wasn't trying to berate ya Darth... just find it silly that here it is almost 40 years later, it took people 20 years to figure out the math for the actual size and to agree on that measurement, and yet there are still alot of people that are debating and trying to come up with different numbers. I believe however that the scale of 1/20th (or more precisely 1:21.19628057897664) for the 5' footer is probably the most accepted. It would be nice if we could just have some hard numbers that everyone agrees on and move on!

As far as the Fine Molds Falcon... I was completely on board getting one until I learned that it was actually smaller then the AMT/Ertl... I think they really should have done it a few inches bigger then that one and I would have snatched one up ASAP! I understand they were trying to come up with a standardize scale for them... but 1:76 was a bit on the small side. Would have been nicer if they did a 1:64 scale and used taht as the basis for all the other models they came out with. They would have been bigger, had more detail and would have been easier to handle and assemble.
 
This thread is more than 3 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top