Found! Obi-Wan Kenobi ANH Lightsaber Emitter

Originally posted by JHVanOphem@Oct 7 2005, 02:35 AM
Barry did post, I thought, in both threads?
[snapback]1091510[/snapback]​
Maybe, but Barry's not Master Replicas, and he no longer works for them.

Anyway, no biggie - the last thing this thread needs is anybody's endorsement. :D

And now, on to the Top Ten list...

10. Bastards beat us to it..
9. (Ala Tom Petty during a liver performace) Y'all gonna put me out of a job.
8. That's... im...P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.....
7. Who died and made YOU people experts?
6. The Force is STRONG with this thread...
5. You must be smoking a balance pipe.
4. Derwent our "authentic replicas" claim... :D
3. This thread will bring a balance pipe to the Force :p
2. While you're at it, guys, please redesign our Star Trek props :lol
1. Congratulations guys. WELL done.

And our Top Ten responses to MR:

10. Use the Force, Steve - LFL archives can deceive you...
9. (add yours here)
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.

- Gabe
 
Originally posted by PHArchivist@Oct 6 2005, 06:11 PM
What about the rotating blades?

They didn't use the hero prop for that did they?

(I relize this may be a silly question for the OB1 experts here)
[snapback]1091485[/snapback]​

Nope. The stunt with rotating blade was a different piece, cast in aluminum from a presumed wooden master, and later become the basis for the Luke ROTJ.
 
Not a "pressumed wooden master" ;) , the actual item came up for sale on e-bay about a year ago. It matched the OWK hero prop in a number of interesting areas, including the swoop between the gear and pommel section, and the pommel section also had the cubes sloped in such a way that you could see that it was based off of the orignal configuration of the pommel (unflipped).

Dan Stokes
DDStokes@aol.com
 
Originally posted by Anakin Starkiller@Oct 7 2005, 03:52 AM
Not a "pressumed wooden master" ;) ,  the actual item came up for sale on e-bay about a year ago.  It matched the OWK hero prop in a number of interesting areas, including the swoop between the gear and pommel section, and the pommel section also had the cubes  sloped in such a way that you could see that it was based off of the orignal configuration  of the pommel (unflipped).

Dan Stokes
DDStokes@aol.com
[snapback]1091560[/snapback]​

:confused Hmmmm, don't want to get sidetracked but any PICS of said eBay item????????????:D
 
I have every sweet pic....

i-1.jpeg
 
Not to confuse this search, but I have another possible search to undertake...
I was going over John Knoll's new book and there's a great closeup on page 24 of the Falcon's gunport. I noticed right away that the four barrels of the gun mount into ....
Four combustion chamber interiors. but, not from the Derwent.
Only the tops are visible, but they're definitely from another engine. The hole patterns are very different.

This book Creating the Worlds of Star Wars: 365 Days has some great set pics that I'll go over later looking for Derwent parts (Falcon, X-wing and TIE cockpits etc.).


One more idea -
There's an obvious white plane/jet wreck in Mos Eisley behind the speeder dealer (big tail in the air, partial wings - see Chronicles page 93, top left pic).
Perhaps it's the plane the Derwent came out of? (or this second engine).
It might help narrow the search or provide some context for more parts.
 
Originally posted by lonepigeon@Oct 7 2005, 05:39 AM
Not to confuse this search, but I have another possible search to undertake...
I was going over John Knoll's new book and there's a great closeup on page 24 of the Falcon's gunport. I noticed right away that the four barrels of the gun mount into ....
Four combustion chamber interiors. but, not from the Derwent.
Only the tops are visible, but they're definitely from another engine. The hole patterns are very different.
Indeed, Chris - good eye. :)

combustion_quad.JPG


One more idea -
There's an obvious white plane/jet wreck in Mos Eisley behind the speeder dealer (big tail in the air, partial wings - see Chronicles page 93, top left pic).
Perhaps it's the plane the Derwent came out of? (or this second engine).
It might help narrow the search or provide some context for more parts.
[snapback]1091622[/snapback]​
Here's the pic in question:

selling_speeder_1.JPG


Notice that there are too many intersecting planar surfaces that are aerodynamically overconstrained. It could have possibly been scrap wings/fins/stablizers/tail sections that were welded or bolted together to make it look like a futuristic aircraft. But even that seems unlikely, because I'm having a real hard time with the set lighting...

Look at the sunlight direction here:..................................................vs. the sunlight direction here:

plane_tail_chronicles_p93_1.JPG
................
matte.JPG


Pretty harsh lighting on the arch and "junk plane" when Alec, Mark, the buyer, and the speeder in the foreground are hardly casting any shadows (guess it's overcast where they're standing, lol). But for the sake of argument, even if they're beneath a diffusion tarp, the sun behind them can't be in two places at once, even if you ARE shooting in Tunisia... ;) Could it be artificial lighting or a matte painting? It does look kind of "flat" - I don't sense any depth of field and it has a painted look to it... I say it's a matte background painting, and it wouldn't be the first time the technique was used in the Trilogy... Feel free to disagree, but I'm pretty confident about this. :)

Whatever it is, it's not like any tail or stablizer (vertical OR horizontal) configuration that I've ever seen - definitely NOT a Gloster Meteor (the vintage fighter that's powered by the Dewert), pictured below:

russellfs.jpg


The Rolce Royce Nene engine - younger cousin of the Derwent - powered the following military aircraft:

Lockheed CL-30 "Silver Star" (Canadian variant of the T-33 "Shooting Star"):

TBird.jpg


Notes of interest: in Canada, the T-33 was designated the CL-30 Silver Star and the US-made Allison turbojets of the original were replaced with Canadian built Rolls-Royce Nene 10 engines. The type still serves as a trainer for both countries. Limited numbers were also produced for export, some being modified to carry light armament. While only 1,718 P-80 Shooting Stars were built, nearly 7,000 T-33s saw active service around the world.

Today, the T-33 continues to serve in Canada as a target tug and general utility aircraft, having been redesignated the CT-133. Additional examples are still in active military service in Japan and several other nations. About 50 are in the hands of warbird operators, mostly in the United States.

Chris, if T-33s and CL-33s are still flying using US or Canadian-built Nene engines, perhaps it might be useful to see what the balance pipe and combustion chambers looks like on their engines, as it's a safe bet parts are still being manufactured or modified to keep them airworthy. :)

Grumman F9F "Panther" (US Navy):

f9f_grumman_panther_flight.jpg


Note of interest: the American firm Pratt & Whitney proceeded to build the Nene engine under license for use in the Navy Panthers, so it's possible some surviving Panthers and US-built Nene engines can be found here in the US

and finally: Hawker FGA.6 "Sea Hawk" (UK):

MPM72509.jpg


- Gabe
 
Thanks for posting all that up Gabe. I was busy and didn't have time to scan.
I was looking at some Nene engines and found a jet that had one and it reminded me of that plane in Mos Eisley. It was the high horizontal stabilizer on the tail, not a match but similar. I then noticed the Meteor had a high one on the tail too, but still no match. It was just a random idea.
You might be right though. It could just be a painting. That seems likely now that you mention it.
It is a set on stage, not in Tunisia (just like the dockingbay 94 entrance and other bits of street). See John Knoll book set#19.

I'm curious about the other engine though. I looked at some Pratt and Whitney's too - no matching chamber there.
I feel like I'm looking through another Revell V-8 model kit, just on a larger scale ;)

BTW - I PM'ed Killdozer. I know he's got a contact ready to look for parts, but I want to give my guy one more day to reconcile the ring of holes or come up with a new part number. No sense searching all over, lining up the parts and then finding out we need a different model number/variation.

I'm going to keep my eye out for Falcon parts in these things. I love the Falcon so a few parts from the full size one might be cool just to have.

BTW - In the cantina picture from John Knoll's book you can actually count all NINE of the "IG-88 heads" (or at least 8, one seems to be shorted, low in the middle of the bar). I need to scan that and send it to my contact. He'd get a kick out of it.

One more idea:
Anyone have any decent pics of a droid restraining bolt?
I grabbed a few small ones off the web. I'll have to do some DVD caps too. I'm thinking it could possibly be the other half of the interconnector (the half that's similar, but not right for the emitter). It looks like it has an industrial strength suction cup in the middle.
 
But don't forget there are twin suns ;)

Originally posted by Prop Runner@Oct 7 2005, 08:18 AM
...I'm having a real hard time with the set lighting...

Look at the sunlight direction here:..................................................vs. the sunlight direction here:..

... the sun behind them can't be in two places at once, even if you ARE shooting in Tunisia...  ;)- Gabe

[snapback]1091668[/snapback]​
 
What were the other dimensions of my emitter? Don't remember. I knew it was almost 2.1" for the outer lip. :)

Thanks for that thread Serafino.
 
Originally posted by kurtyboy+Oct 7 2005, 12:11 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kurtyboy @ Oct 7 2005, 12:11 PM)</div>
But don't forget there are twin suns ;)

<!--QuoteBegin-Prop Runner
@Oct 7 2005, 08:18 AM
...I'm having a real hard time with the set lighting...

Look at the sunlight direction here:..................................................vs. the sunlight direction here:..

... the sun behind them can't be in two places at once, even if you ARE shooting in Tunisia...  ;)- Gabe

[snapback]1091668[/snapback]​
[snapback]1091708[/snapback]​
[/b]
Doh. Yeah, so I looked at the archway scan again and found a THIRD sun:

matte_1.JPG


The lighting angle on the distant moisture vaporator is almost 180 degrees to the right with respect to the lighting over the archway.

Has to be a painting, and the artist should be fired... :p

Chris: thanks for the kind words and good luck in your continued scavenger hunt. :)

- Gabe
 
Amazing work everyone. I haven't been around much lately, but it warms my heart to see that quality work is still being done around here. The obi emitter, the han solo blaster part... all amazing finds. To think it's been more than 20 years since these films came out, and there's still so many mysteries yet to be solved, and still so much fun yet to be had.

Great work.
 
Originally posted by fried mon calamari@Oct 7 2005, 06:17 PM
Cool. Something I can offer to this killer thread.:lol

Here's some captures of the restraining bolt I took a while back....

1104312124_Bolts.jpg

[snapback]1091939[/snapback]​
emitter_CT-3D_compare_rear_2.JPG


I always wondered is the restraining bold was a reversed emitter.....looks close.
Sorry to lift your pics but I needed too. :D

:)
 
I really don't think that's a matte painting. As Chris said, this is not Tunisia, it's on a soundstage, and those are likely just lights facing different directions back there.

-Brandon
 
I think the fact that this part came from an aircraft engine indicates the hero Obi Wan was likely made by the SW art department, and not BAPTY. I've gotta do some more research on this...

-Brandon
 
Originally posted by JOHNLP (OBI-JOHN)@Oct 7 2005, 06:55 PM
Sorry to lift your pics but I needed too. :D

:)
Sorry, eh??? TAKE THIS..

relifter.jpg


Chris, sorry to lift your pic (again), but I had to teach John a lesson here. :D

;)

Brandon - since it's a soundstage, that makes the argument for a matte painting all the more convincing, as there would be precious little room to erect junk planes and full-scale moisture vaporators (unless you believe they built miniatures of these to simulate perspective depth?). Even if they did one or the other, doesn't make sense that the lighting techs would screw up so badly on the continuity.

- Gabe
 
Back
Top