Construction:
The stunt version of Obi Wan’s Saber needed to house a motor, as well as rods and bearings, so it was built entirely from scratch.
The original wooden buck that was used to cast the profile in aluminium turned up, along with one of the raw casts, on Ebay some years ago.
I can’t take credit for any of the information regarding the V2’s history. There have been countless discussions here on the RPF, which I have followed with great interest over the years. Seth’s Lightsaber Bible is also an incredibly impressive tome that consolidates all of this information in to one place:
The Ultimate Guide to Lightsabers eBook
I do make a point of checking any information myself using any available references though. I double checked the “Ebay buck” against the rings of the V2, to make absolutely sure that this was indeed the very buck used to create it. I’m satisfied that it is:
I’ll discuss the process of recreating the exterior of the prop shortly, but in this section, I’d like to go over where my thoughts are regarding the internal structure and construction of the prop, based on what we know about it so far, as well as some of my own theories.
Emitter:
Today, there is a rod which runs through the centre of the prop and holds everything together. The emitter is attached to this rod , along with the “nipple” via an arrangement of grub screws. Having viewed the Death Star duel frame by frame, I’m of the very strong opinion that the emitter itself, was NOT fixed to the internal rod originally. Nor was it fixed to the body in any way, other than it being sandwiched between the body and the blade. I believe the emitter was free to spin independently of the entire mechanism, and was prevented from spinning by Sir Alec Guinness:
I can see no other way for the mechanism to work. The rod is spinning. The blade and nipple are spinning. The emitter, whilst separate to the body, is not spinning. In my view, it MUST be free to spin independently.
It has been pointed out to me that there is evidence of set screws existing below the lip of the emitter. These either exist to secure the bearing, or to lock the emitter on to the nipple. This would of course mean that the emitter would spin with the blade, so I'm doubtful that this was their intended purpose.
There is of course, extensive damage to the emitter today which was not present whilst filming ANH. I plan to replicate this damage for those who wish to recreate the prop as it is today. Rather than having the damage machined, I have chosen to create a vice jig, that will bend the piece in to the correct shape. The jig will be reverse engineered from an exact model of the damaged emitter.
I will also offer the bent emitters separately for those who would like to add them to their existing V2s.
Pommel:
I had an interesting theory regarding the pommel, which I’ll share here, even though I now believe that it is incorrect. It crossed my mind at one stage that if the V2 was cast from the wooden buck as it’s seen in the Ebay auction, there would not be enough material on the pommel to insert in to the main body. It got me toying with the idea that there “might” be an internal tube/chassis that both the pommel and the body slide on to. Perhaps some stock tubing that housed the motor? The mystery tool mark that is present on the pommel “could”, I thought, be evidence of the pommel having been fixed to this internal chassis. On closer inspection though, I don’t believe the pommel was cast from the Ebay buck. It’s not a match dimensionally, and the cast that accompanies it doesn’t include it, which would suggest that it is a separate, removable piece. There is this quote from Brandon too, which has always gone against this hunch:
“The pommel has additional flanges that fit inside the main body of the saber and allow it to be secured, so I doubt it was from the same cast piece.”
The use of the word “flanges” (in the plural) still has me scratching my head ever so slightly. I’m not sure why there would be more than one? Unless they were cut away in some way to accommodate the motor/switch/wires? This is still something that I am playing around with and as yet, I am undecided on.
I originally toyed with the idea that the circular mark on the pommel could have been a filled hole rather than a tool mark. It certainly appears to be raised to my eye, and I originally thought that this went against the idea that it was a tool mark.
I thought that it could perhaps have been the original opening for the wires to the motor, but was deemed too visible. I did think I’d found evidence for this here:
But on closer inspection, that is the wrong pommel groove. The one that we are discussing is the one that is clearly visible (although, too bright to make out any detail). There are other references that clearly show the wire entering the hilt where we’d expect (the location of the “mystery chunk”).
So after some discussions behind the scenes and investigating further in to the mystery pommel mark, I have abandoned the idea that it is a filled hole. It turns out, after trawling the internet, and looking in to the milling process more closely, that a raised circular mark like the one we see here is not uncommon under specific circumstances.
The real mystery is why it was left that way? It would have been easy enough to get rid of. An even bigger mystery is how to recreate it! This is something that I need to discuss with my machinist.
The fact that it appears NOT to be the remnants of a hole, have ramifications for the internals too. I’m actually quite pleased that I can now leave the pommel almost entirely solid. This will add a little weight to balance the grenade.
Mystery Chunk:
The “mystery Chunk” which now covers the opening for the wires that powered the motor, was recently identified by
BRRogers . There is a thread
HERE that explains this. It was in fact a boot stud from a Royal Hunters Wellington boot. This brand of wellington boot is now known to have been used by the production team, and the studs from these boots appears on several ROTJ props. They are now relatively easy to get hold of within the community, and there are some great replicas available too. I was lucky enough to get hold of a pair of boots that are in perfect condition, so will be able to offer genuine vintage studs for at least the first 48 kits (if we get to that kind of number).
Cone Knob:
Unlike the “mystery chunk”, I won’t be able to offer a genuine vintage “cone knob”. This part has been identified, but unfortunately, it is not easy (or cheap!) to get hold of. For that reason, I have decided to make my own. There are replicas available, but for such a small part, I figured it would be far more cost effective to have them made than to purchase from a third party.
This turned out to be a project in and of itself! …
The part is from a J.A.Michell Engineering LTD Reference Hydraulic Transcription Turntable:
As seen in “A Clockwork Orange”. Alongside David Prowse, interestingly!
Of course, I set out to try and find one of these, so that I could see one in person and take measurements. This was not to be. The turntables themselves are collectors items, obviously, and sell for upwards of £2000.
It occurred to me that I could possibly borrow one from someone within the community, or collaborate remotely. The photogrammetric techniques that I use to replicate 3D objects, only require good quality photographs, from various angles. And if the photographs include a scale reference there is no need to actually see the object in person.
I was originally put in contact with someone who very kindly agreed to help me, and who owned a Michell turntable. Unfortunately, the knurling was the wrong scale. It turns out that the Transcriptor went through several phases, and there is a fair bit of variation in the knurling (from chunky, to fine, to none at all!).
Eventually, I saw on one of the FB pages that a fine V2 replica (with vintage parts) had been sold to someone I knew, and who I now regard as a friend. The knurling on this particular cone knob is perfect, and matches that on the actual prop!
mgenovese312 agreed to help me by providing me with photographic references. Importantly, these were on a metric cutting mat for scale reference, so I could not only replicate, the object in 3D, but I could determine an accurate scale!
Clamp/Lever:
I’ll assume that most people reading this will know where the clamp originated. It is, briefly, (for those who don’t know) the central section to a Graflex 3 Cell Flash handle. A vintage camera flash that attached to the side of a Graflex Speed Graphic camera:
There are a variety of replica clamps available, and they really have been done to perfection, so at this time I’m leaning towards purchasing a pre-existing replica for those who would like one to be included in their kit. I haven’t ruled out having my own produced, and have started a model of my own (mainly for rendering purposes), but my main focus right now is perfecting the machined parts.
The same applies to the lever. When it comes to going ahead with the run, it may prove to be more cost effective (for everyone) to have the lever manufactured. This is something that I’m giving some thought to, and will announce closer to the time, when it comes to pricing up the run.
Internal Construction:
*Latest version (17/08/21)
My understanding of the interior of the prop has been guided by what we know about how the prop functioned, as well as my own investigations in to the standard sizes of components. I originally set out investigating imperial size bearings as I assumed (wrongly) that they would be more common back in the 1970s. The closest I could find to the actual opening in the emitter were bigger than the measurement I was getting from both my 2D and my 3D investigations in to the dimensions of the prop. After a little more digging, it turns out that metric bearing are far more commonplace and always have bean, on account of them having been invented and largely manufactured in Europe! With that cleared up, I am now much happier with the measurement I have for the opening. It’s only a small difference, but finding a real world part, which fits perfectly with my calculations gives me more confidence that the model is on the right track.
The interior of the main body has also been guided by real world component sizes. Motors come in a whole variety of shapes and sizes. Having looked in to these at great length, I was left with a choice between two of the more common, standardised sizes, the larger of which would have left the walls of the motor chamber much too thin for my liking. This jump between standard sizes occurs with both Japanese style RC motors and European model railway motors. I came across a conversation on another thread from 2019, where
vadermania discusses having spoken with Jon Bunker himself regarding the internals, and he recalls that a geared model railway motor was used. I have managed to track down a vintage motor, that fits the description, along with more modern versions that have similar dimensions and RPM.
I believe the grip/grenade section of the hilt would have been mostly solid. I believe this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there would have been no reason to go to the trouble of milling out this part of the prop. It was powered externally and only needed to accommodate the motor. Secondly, and maybe I’m reading too much in to this, but something Hamill said whilst talking with Brandon really stuck with me. It’s only a small thing, but the words “It’s heavy, isn’t it” really jumped out at me.
Anyone who owns one of the various V2s currently available, will know that they are not particularly heavy. On the contrary. Aluminium is light to begin with, and FX hilts have to make as much space available as possible to accommodate batteries, soundcards, etc.
My latest iteration of the models has extended in to the grenade section slightly, to allow for the bearing and the coupling. This is to allow for the longer, geared motor.
I've carried over the step in the booster section and expanded the interior to accommodate the switch and wiring.
The extent to which the pommel would have been milled out is up for debate (as is all of this). I wonder if it might be entirely solid, up to the point where the wires entered?
Much of this is still very much up for discussion, and I’m happy to alter the model if/when new information arises, or if I’m corrected on anything by those who are more familiar with the prop.