ANH Hero DL-44 Discussion - Three ANH Greeblies Found

Vanitas

Sr Member
Also, I just noticed the replacement hammer I ordered from Field Marshall seems like someone before me gouged the back of it up. Very disappointing.

EDIT: Here is my old hammer (left) compared to the new one I bought from Field Marshall (right). It looks like someone horizontally filed the diagonal potion of the hammer, and did so very sloppily. It is uneven and throws off the entire look of the thing when viewed from the side.

I might just have to return everything I bought from Chris, which is super disappointing.

20220128_173419.jpg


20220128_173433.jpg
 
Last edited:

lonepigeon

Sr Member
That would be great. But if I recall, Lonepigeon prescribed to the T track theory. I can't see how the T track could possibly have ever been there. There is no T track base visible on the MerrSonns or HERO.

Every reproduction that builds a HERO with T track front sight, the base sticks out well beyond the barrel curve and raises the antenna far too much to match any HERO images. It is visibly different.

Surprised if they didn't take pics of the HERO as finished by the prop dept "before" Ford test fired it. After the outdoor test most of the plastic bits broke off so it is what it is in the post images.

There must be other MS images out there.
Do they ever show the MS at Skywalker or other displays?

Funny the Stunts don't have the antenna but since they were done later, the parts may not have been available AND they knew they were too fragile by then...

Correct. It's definitely not T-track. Opinions can change :)
Seems likely that it's the same simple rod piece as used on the Merr Sonn.
It is too bad there aren't more pics of the ANH Hero.

Chris
 

lonepigeon

Sr Member
I do like the theory of the Michell sweep arm base where the mystery disc was. You can see one here in the 4th picture, on the cockpit dash
Star Wars Plug and Control panels

And right from the record player
View attachment 1539380

The other similar looking part is the top to the fluid arm, which is thinner and I don't know the diameter. Thanks lonepigeon
View attachment 1539378

That's the Michell Stylus Brush shown. The sweep arm has a nearly identical base just a smaller center hole.
It's definitely NOT the top of the fluid arm. There is a smaller diameter shoulder under the visible head part of the fluid arm. You can see how it's raised up in all uses.

Unfortunately there are NO pics of the blaster with any such disc so we'll probably never know. Since it never appears on screen it probably doesn't really matter anyway.

Chris
 

kpax

Sr Member
That's the Michell Stylus Brush shown. The sweep arm has a nearly identical base just a smaller center hole.
It's definitely NOT the top of the fluid arm. There is a smaller diameter shoulder under the visible head part of the fluid arm. You can see how it's raised up in all uses.

Unfortunately there are NO pics of the blaster with any such disc so we'll probably never know. Since it never appears on screen it probably doesn't really matter anyway.

Chris
Good info. Thanks.

The disc with the smaller hole would prob fit the theory better.

You are right. It doesn’t matter for the replicas but would help settle how and why the mystery disc was formed although I think we probably nailed down a pretty good scenario.

Also the rail damage Q of if there was a connecting part.

Seems likely but can never really tell unless a prop guy took his own pics of the finished prop before Ford banged it up. ! ; )

Just curious as to the way it was built.

I wonder if there were any design drawings of blasters that they worked from for the greeblies or if they just winged it?
 

chubsANDdoggers

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
As things are I would just say that Field Marshall and Todd's Costumes both have things about their scopes that could stand to be improved.

Just remember these guys are not in it for the same reasons most that come to this thread are. If I’m not mistaken Todd or Chris don’t really design up these parts themselves. They rely on members here to do that for them. It’s a game of telephone in many ways. Production, assembly and quality control is upsetting to see but I’m sure they are just grabbing parts from packed drawers so these things will happen unfortunately. But you are paying a lot for these so I’m sure if you reach out to either.. both would be willing to help?
 

MastahBlastah

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
The front lens thing isn't a huge problem since it's under the hood, I just didn't expect this part to be non-threaded (especially since the back lens is fully threaded). The lower knurled knob half was a problem, though I'm suspecting mine was just a one-off mistake of being threaded wrong.

The back lens being gouged so much is honestly the thing I don't like the most about the scope I got, as it just draws my eye right to it. Again I would peg this down to a mistake in production, though it certainly would have been nice to have not had it.

As things are I would just say that Field Marshall and Todd's Costumes both have things about their scopes that could stand to be improved.
Unfortunately, that gap between the larger brass lens retainer and the scope bell is present on all of the FM Elite scopes, which is strange because on his non-elite model he got that detail right. The brass should press flush against the steel of the scope bell, just like on the smaller front element. I adore FM's elite scope, but it does have a few flaws (this one being the most noticeable, and also frustrating for the above reasons).

Having to glue in the front smaller element is a little annoying, but not so bad imo because aesthetically it still looks correct when assembled, if you do a good, clean job gluing it.

It's also missing those small holes that are drilled through the steel at each end of the tube, underneath where the brass elements thread in.

Another one is the noticeable machine step in the larger bell. Once blued and weathered, that line always becomes more and more prominent, and it appears to be a very smooth transition with all of the real Hensoldts. I'm sure it could be removed cleanly with a lathe and some steel wool, but by hand I'm scared to tackle it for fear of messing up that subtle transition, keeping it uniform all the way around. This one is pretty dang nitpicky, though, I must admit.

Then there's the lack of serial number on the side of the windage base.

All of that said, the FM Elite is still my favorite Hensoldt replica, BY FAR! Sometimes the little, missed details just sting that much more when it's so near-perfect already.
 

Vanitas

Sr Member
Unfortunately, that gap between the larger brass lens retainer and the scope bell is present on all of the FM Elite scopes, which is strange because on his non-elite model he got that detail right. The brass should press flush against the steel of the scope bell, just like on the smaller front element. I adore FM's elite scope, but it does have a few flaws (this one being the most noticeable, and also frustrating for the above reasons).

Having to glue in the front smaller element is a little annoying, but not so bad imo because aesthetically it still looks correct when assembled, if you do a good, clean job gluing it.

It's also missing those small holes that are drilled through the steel at each end of the tube, underneath where the brass elements thread in.

Another one is the noticeable machine step in the larger bell. Once blued and weathered, that line always becomes more and more prominent, and it appears to be a very smooth transition with all of the real Hensoldts. I'm sure it could be removed cleanly with a lathe and some steel wool, but by hand I'm scared to tackle it for fear of messing up that subtle transition, keeping it uniform all the way around. This one is pretty dang nitpicky, though, I must admit.

Then there's the lack of serial number on the side of the windage base.

All of that said, the FM Elite is still my favorite Hensoldt replica, BY FAR! Sometimes the little, missed details just sting that much more when it's so near-perfect already.

The gap on my own is pronounced due to a machining error, which is the main point I was trying to make. Yes, there is a gap around the entire thing, but about half of the outer brass lens retainer is substantially thinner than the rest of it. Again the inner front lens ring is annoying and something I'd like to see improved in the future, but that isn't a huge deal to me. The flaw in the rear lens retainer and my wrongly tapped/drilled(?) lower knob half are the main things I took grievance of.

At least to me Todd's scope seems much sharper and more well defined than Field Marshall's (the lens retainers are sharp and very flush against the scope body, the rear bell has clean lines and is not 'rounded', etc). Todd's current scope just has the wrong Hensoldt lettering and incorrect scope dial knurl, but once those are both corrected I think I might go with his scope to be honest.

And I did reach out to both Todd and Chris (respectively) about the issues I had with their parts already. Todd has offered to replace the scope I got once the issues are corrected n a future batch, and I am waiting to hear back from Field Marshall. Chris has been very helpful in the past though, so I am hopeful that he will be able to help me out too.

 
Last edited:

Vanitas

Sr Member
Reworked my mount. Did a couple versions just because. Two are shown here. Top is offset center hole with all the gouges and such. Bottom is a “clean” version with the hole center.. View attachment 1540210 View attachment 1540211

Looks very nice!

Although one thing you may want to include are the differently sized uprights If you look carefully then you can tell the left upright on the scope mount is actually a bit narrower than the one on the right, which is almost certainly due to the whole thing being handmade. A lot of the replica mounts just have them the same width/idealized, so that was something I also modified in mine.

e9daeba2-977a-46af-834b-6edd4fb06fe4.png
 

chubsANDdoggers

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
;) It’s a small detail but it’s there. That photo is angled so it’s going to be more predominant there..

EDIT: top row has this detail. The bottom row is even fyi. Two different versions..
F55B406E-3ED0-42CA-AA58-096F36D35B32.png


Might be easier to see here maybe?
8FEA98FC-AC11-49F2-A701-35217BE02B35.png
 
Last edited:

deadbolt

Sr Member
One thing to note chubsANDdoggers, Pat kpax noticed after we had the Mega-Runs that the underside of the cradle on the front-side, where the round cradle portion meets with the vertical, appears to be actually a sharp, square-ish degree instead of a strong radius...something I missed on my model back in the day. ;)


-Carson
 
Last edited:

kpax

Sr Member
Looks very nice!

Although one thing you may want to include are the differently sized uprights If you look carefully then you can tell the left upright on the scope mount is actually a bit narrower than the one on the right, which is almost certainly due to the whole thing being handmade. A lot of the replica mounts just have them the same width/idealized, so that was something I also modified in mine.
And here I thought I was the only one…
;)
 

Vanitas

Sr Member
And here I thought I was the only one…
;)

Like I said; I tried my best to accurate Field Marshall's scope mount as best I could! ;)

20220130_192254.jpg


Might be a bit hard to make out, but the left upright was thinned out quite a bit (the bevels throw off that look a tad).

That being said I totally would not mind if the folks here worked with Dave at DEC to have another run of high end steel parts made sometime. The overall quality on those, from what I've seen, is just something that hasn't been matched since.
 

kpax

Sr Member
Like I said; I tried my best to accurate Field Marshall's scope mount as best I could! ;)

View attachment 1540311

Might be a bit hard to make out, but the left upright was thinned out quite a bit (the bevels throw off that look a tad).

That being said I totally would not mind if the folks here worked with Dave at DEC to have another run of high end steel parts made sometime. The overall quality on those, from what I've seen, is just something that hasn't been matched since.
They were the best Imo.

You could certainly ask him or start an interest thread.

At the time there was debate over “pristine/perfected” or vintage. Lots of back and fourth.
 
Last edited:

Vanitas

Sr Member
I did briefly talk to Dave a little while ago when inquiring about his current inventory of parts, and while he doesn't have much at the moment he DID say that he may consider doing a run of steel parts sometime this year.

An interest thread may well be worth trying to put together, as I'd certainly be down to sign up for that list! And especially if the parts come with some of the minor tweaks and revisions that have been made sense (also, there is a part of me that really wants to duplicate the NR style of bull barrel accurately, though I understand that something like that would need to be a custom commission of some sort.)
 

kpax

Sr Member
interesting tidbit

I noticed that the 2 side images of the broke 44 MerrSonn are different.

I thought at first these were 2 different casting but then thought the top coil plug must have popped off between photos and they put it on in the wrong place. One is slightly more forward than the other.

The bottom and right are the same. The left is further back.

blaster merrsonn short comp.jpg
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
Top