Thomas J Newton
New Member
Thanks, your speculation sounds spot on - I forgot about how the pommels were attached. Makes perfect sense that they were likely hollowed at least in part. I just found the Project Runs section too. Cheers.
Lineage Foundry Cast ANH Kenobi Stunt Hilts
chazzychaz
Sr Member
550 can motors nice, I been into Rc since 80, the motors then were slightly smaller in diameter and length, I think Tamiya vintage rc grass hopper was my first kit. I know ILM used the old Tamiya 1/15 Sherman tank for the sand crawler. What are the odds that they used the motors from that? this is all conjecture. probably way off since prop guys were in the UK. IDK
Yeah, I've since revised this since Mouse Vader did his research into the stunt Graflex and the diagram from Jon Bunker (supplied by vadermania). The motor was much smaller and spun at specific speeds based on its voltage (1-6 based on Jon Bunker's memory). I've used both to find the closest match that exists today, based on this info, that would've been like what existed in the 70's.
Based on the rpm's that Mouse Vader managed to deduce from the first film of the stunt, and on the specifics on the diagram of Jon's, this is the closest I've found to the motors that would've been used at the time in model train kits in the UK. The 620 6V is what I've been testing with and it spins almost exactly as what Mouse Vader charts. I've yet to attach a full blade to my set up but there are still some kinks to work out before then.
Speaking of working out some things, while making the V3 for the cast run I'm working on, I've cracked the method on making them! With some tinkering, I'm positive I've worked out the way that the production team machined the V3...THEY DIDN'T! At least not all of it.
They chucked a raw cast into a lathe and did nothing more than take a rasp to it to clean the surface before applying sandpaper. The emitter face/plate, booster, and clamp section were the only places machined...and just to clean the surface and fit a clamp. That's it. I've nearly matched the details 1:1. Pics sure to follow!
Based on the rpm's that Mouse Vader managed to deduce from the first film of the stunt, and on the specifics on the diagram of Jon's, this is the closest I've found to the motors that would've been used at the time in model train kits in the UK. The 620 6V is what I've been testing with and it spins almost exactly as what Mouse Vader charts. I've yet to attach a full blade to my set up but there are still some kinks to work out before then.
Speaking of working out some things, while making the V3 for the cast run I'm working on, I've cracked the method on making them! With some tinkering, I'm positive I've worked out the way that the production team machined the V3...THEY DIDN'T! At least not all of it.
They chucked a raw cast into a lathe and did nothing more than take a rasp to it to clean the surface before applying sandpaper. The emitter face/plate, booster, and clamp section were the only places machined...and just to clean the surface and fit a clamp. That's it. I've nearly matched the details 1:1. Pics sure to follow!
Last edited:
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
PPP - they're the same motor/g.box I settled on. My feeling is this sort of combo has been kicking around for a long time.
So I'm gonna post this across the multiple threads but I wanted to let you know where this is at.
All of February was spent making repairs to my lathe and much of March has been me working on getting these machined hilts out. In fact, I've done--- and redone it--- twice now. I'm still unhappy with the porosity and some shrinkage of the metal in some areas when I cast it, so I've invested in a few things that'll help solve the problem (or reduce it). I want you guys to get the best and closest replica of the prop imaginable.
These are the current casts so far...
I'm proud of the level of detail and I've got almost a complete match with the original. It's a one in billions chance of me completely recreating everything that exists on the original, where they're at, but I can recreate the same kind of details.
You can see what I mean about the porosity. Towards the booster section is where it becomes pockmarked heavily.
The emitters and pommels below, I'm most likely keep and move on with. The hilt bodies themselves, I'll likely melt and cast again to cut down porosity and other surface defects.
All of February was spent making repairs to my lathe and much of March has been me working on getting these machined hilts out. In fact, I've done--- and redone it--- twice now. I'm still unhappy with the porosity and some shrinkage of the metal in some areas when I cast it, so I've invested in a few things that'll help solve the problem (or reduce it). I want you guys to get the best and closest replica of the prop imaginable.
These are the current casts so far...
I'm proud of the level of detail and I've got almost a complete match with the original. It's a one in billions chance of me completely recreating everything that exists on the original, where they're at, but I can recreate the same kind of details.
You can see what I mean about the porosity. Towards the booster section is where it becomes pockmarked heavily.
The emitters and pommels below, I'm most likely keep and move on with. The hilt bodies themselves, I'll likely melt and cast again to cut down porosity and other surface defects.
Last edited:
Propdude113
Active Member
So I'm gonna post this across the multiple threads but I wanted to let you know where this is at.
All of February was spent making repairs to my lathe and much of March has been me working on getting these machined hilts out. In fact, I've done--- and redone it--- twice now. I'm still unhappy with the porosity and some shrinkage of the metal in some areas when I cast it, so I've invested in a few things that'll help solve the problem (or reduce it). I want you guys to get the best and closest replica of the prop imaginable.
These are the current casts so far...
I'm proud of the level of detail and I've got almost a complete match with the original. In a one in billions chance of me completely recreating everything that exists on the original, where they're at, but I can recreate the same kind of details.
You can see what I mean about the porosity. Towards the booster section is where it becomes pockmarked heavily.
The emitters and pommels below, I'm most likely keep and move on with. The hilt bodies themselves, I'll likely melt and cast again to cut down porosity and other surface defects.
Pics aren't showing
Fixed... I hope.
Thats looking crazy good!
So there will be a run? is there a list already?
So there will be a run? is there a list already?
juajn7fernandez
The run is going on "now," I'm still working on solving a bunch of things to get the best results I can. Check the Project Runs section.
If I could somehow get a contact overseas and get a bunch of the stuff available in the UK and Europe for home foundries, I think that'd be a viable side business. It's so hard to get the proper stuff here without it being on an industrial scale.
The run is going on "now," I'm still working on solving a bunch of things to get the best results I can. Check the Project Runs section.
If I could somehow get a contact overseas and get a bunch of the stuff available in the UK and Europe for home foundries, I think that'd be a viable side business. It's so hard to get the proper stuff here without it being on an industrial scale.
Last edited:
What did I do while under a global quarantine?
Make lightsabers and go mad...
Spent the last couple days and nights re-hauling my wood master model to get it even more accurate. I wasn't liking where the revised model was off and spent way too long fixing it up. My measurements are tighter and, after much fuss, I got the taper of the clamp/body section spot-on.
I'm also trying a modular thing for the pommel, so I can make the pommel and the "pommel knub" that existing copies have today.
So I guess a big update to come with this new and revised v3 V2/V3 model. Time to see if my arms and legs will be enough for this on Shapeways.
Make lightsabers and go mad...
Spent the last couple days and nights re-hauling my wood master model to get it even more accurate. I wasn't liking where the revised model was off and spent way too long fixing it up. My measurements are tighter and, after much fuss, I got the taper of the clamp/body section spot-on.
I'm also trying a modular thing for the pommel, so I can make the pommel and the "pommel knub" that existing copies have today.
So I guess a big update to come with this new and revised v3 V2/V3 model. Time to see if my arms and legs will be enough for this on Shapeways.
First off, I've got to say how exciting it is that there's a sudden interest in this with various builds by other members tackling the V2/V3 as they originally were, and I'm very much looking forward to where they go. By my last count, there are 3 or 4 concurrent project threads doing it and 2 of them are as-production-built variants. Very pleased that misery will now have company. 
Here, aping what Halliwax called his, is my "Legacy" hilt. A whole heaping lot shorter than "As-production-built ANH Ben Kenobi Stunt/SpFX hilt."
(Rough schematic by Jon Bunker, provided by vadermania)
The cross-section of my Stunt hilt
A poor quality video of it in "action"
And a brief video just showing it off and for future reference.
(Boy, did this video take forever to upload)
I've gone over before how I think the emitter is most definitely a separate piece---why, I can't say--- but the recent discussions about it being static isn't completely ruled out. In the video, I tweak fastening the emitter to the nipple a few times to demonstrate, but don't know how clear it is for others, but when the rig is fully assembled, tightening the emitter to the nipple creates more tension on the d/s which causes the motor to work harder to spin, potentially wearing it out sooner. The strain also makes it churn a bit louder. Whether it's the latter or the former, or possibly just one of the emitter grub screw threads tore, with a looser emitter there's less stress on the motor and runs just a bit quieter (and maybe just a bit faster) than it would normally spin if the emitter was fully tensioned on the nipple. I can't help but think one of these scenarios lead to there being a static, or static-looking emitter in the film. Whether it was purposeful or an eventual result of prolonged usage, I can't say but evidence is now strong for both ideas, in my mind.
(A quick note, one of my emitter grubs' threads tore out, so I'm sure tensioning from one of them is having an affect on the d/s, but before it tore, I encountered the same scenario with two fully tensioned grub screws.)
It should also be mentioned that if the original is anything at all built like mine, a loose/static emitter will still spin, as demonstrated in my video. When it's caught by the nipple, it will partly spin and stop, or stutter slowly around it. It really depends on how it's held in cases like that because the length of the fencing pole/rod will slightly shift the d/s enough to affect its spin. I think had my d/s been longer, the effect would be more pronounced.
After doing this, I have come to conclusion that the bushing in the emitter in Jon Bunker's schematic, while maybe necessary for the Graflex stunt, may be unnecessary for the Kenobi stunt. With the original wood buck sporting a separate emitter/neck area, I'm sure that's how they made extra emitter pieces and most likely how the V2 got it; I did without it because having something stop at the corner of the neck and windvane, and hollowed out for a collar, I worried that it would be a stress point liable to warping if enough force was applied to it whether it be by striking or being dropped (why I opted for an extended steel collar). The pressure-fitted bushing and the steel collar I opted for only really serve as a means to hold the emitter to the rest of the hilt, and help to center the d/s. Had I gone the way the original most likely had gone, I wonder if I could have done without it completely. I won't be making another just to test it but it is a thought.
I said I don't like duplicates, but after having this in hand now, I'm gonna have to go back over what I said before about turning this into a V2; it looks like I'll just have to make another one of these to keep as a V2. I swear, this stuff just never ends!
For those asking about the run, things seem to be cautiously picking back up, so that's getting going again...again. I'd like to try a few new methods in getting cleaner and blemish-free casts and something closer to what Vadermaina has said about his cast before, as well as the one in private collection. It's slow going but it'll get there!
Here, aping what Halliwax called his, is my "Legacy" hilt. A whole heaping lot shorter than "As-production-built ANH Ben Kenobi Stunt/SpFX hilt."
- Internal layout based off of Jon Bunker's schematics and known first-hand accounts/observations of the V2
- Cast Aluminium
- 4 piece design: emitter, nipple, hilt/body, and pommel
- Single 6v motor
- Red micro flip switch
- Modern red connectors instead of the white, boxier versions to save space in the inside
- Painted in colors to match as close as I could get to the BTS on-set photos
- Satin Black
- Dark Gray
- Metallic Gold+Dark Brown mix
(Rough schematic by Jon Bunker, provided by vadermania)
The cross-section of my Stunt hilt
A poor quality video of it in "action"
And a brief video just showing it off and for future reference.
(Boy, did this video take forever to upload)
I've gone over before how I think the emitter is most definitely a separate piece---why, I can't say--- but the recent discussions about it being static isn't completely ruled out. In the video, I tweak fastening the emitter to the nipple a few times to demonstrate, but don't know how clear it is for others, but when the rig is fully assembled, tightening the emitter to the nipple creates more tension on the d/s which causes the motor to work harder to spin, potentially wearing it out sooner. The strain also makes it churn a bit louder. Whether it's the latter or the former, or possibly just one of the emitter grub screw threads tore, with a looser emitter there's less stress on the motor and runs just a bit quieter (and maybe just a bit faster) than it would normally spin if the emitter was fully tensioned on the nipple. I can't help but think one of these scenarios lead to there being a static, or static-looking emitter in the film. Whether it was purposeful or an eventual result of prolonged usage, I can't say but evidence is now strong for both ideas, in my mind.
(A quick note, one of my emitter grubs' threads tore out, so I'm sure tensioning from one of them is having an affect on the d/s, but before it tore, I encountered the same scenario with two fully tensioned grub screws.)
It should also be mentioned that if the original is anything at all built like mine, a loose/static emitter will still spin, as demonstrated in my video. When it's caught by the nipple, it will partly spin and stop, or stutter slowly around it. It really depends on how it's held in cases like that because the length of the fencing pole/rod will slightly shift the d/s enough to affect its spin. I think had my d/s been longer, the effect would be more pronounced.
After doing this, I have come to conclusion that the bushing in the emitter in Jon Bunker's schematic, while maybe necessary for the Graflex stunt, may be unnecessary for the Kenobi stunt. With the original wood buck sporting a separate emitter/neck area, I'm sure that's how they made extra emitter pieces and most likely how the V2 got it; I did without it because having something stop at the corner of the neck and windvane, and hollowed out for a collar, I worried that it would be a stress point liable to warping if enough force was applied to it whether it be by striking or being dropped (why I opted for an extended steel collar). The pressure-fitted bushing and the steel collar I opted for only really serve as a means to hold the emitter to the rest of the hilt, and help to center the d/s. Had I gone the way the original most likely had gone, I wonder if I could have done without it completely. I won't be making another just to test it but it is a thought.
I said I don't like duplicates, but after having this in hand now, I'm gonna have to go back over what I said before about turning this into a V2; it looks like I'll just have to make another one of these to keep as a V2. I swear, this stuff just never ends!
For those asking about the run, things seem to be cautiously picking back up, so that's getting going again...again. I'd like to try a few new methods in getting cleaner and blemish-free casts and something closer to what Vadermaina has said about his cast before, as well as the one in private collection. It's slow going but it'll get there!
Last edited:
First off, with the run aside, take your time. seriously. This type of experimenting and research is priceless.
I'm going to read over this again tomorrow, I'm surprised at the amount of kick it has. In this model, does the emitter kinda stay put without the nipple because of the pressure around the bearing and neck sleeve?
Super, super impressed here. Amazing work!
I'm going to read over this again tomorrow, I'm surprised at the amount of kick it has. In this model, does the emitter kinda stay put without the nipple because of the pressure around the bearing and neck sleeve?
Super, super impressed here. Amazing work!
Thanks for the kind words; unfortunately, if I keep tinkering, it'll never get around to being done. Ya gotta draw a line sometime and gotta get a move on it.
There's a slight pressure but not enough to hold it in if you're swinging it around. It'll just fly off. The nipple most definitely helps lock it place.
I have a bad habit of machining things with a slightly looser tolerance. If the bushing in the emitter would have a purpose, it would be to help secure the emitter and have it spin, had the steel collar pressure fit into the lower neck/windvane. On this piece, I have paper shims to help wedge it all together. Though I'm kinda glad it doesn't. Nothing is straight in this. The square dowel isn't, so it adds a wobble; the steel d/s isn't, which early on had areas catching on the inside of the hilt, which created friction which had problems on the motor; it's the whole reason I can't accept that the stunt hilt was machined as a single static piece from a cast source. The cast is too wonky.
You'd have to do something similar to how I had to handle it: find center of the neck, bore in; flip around, find center of the booster/lower half of the body, bore in; have the two channels meet and have them have enough clearance for the d/s to spin freely. Do the same for the emitter. It's the only method I've come up with to make sure something that's as off-center as the raw cast be centered as possible to have the internals work smoothly.
There's a slight pressure but not enough to hold it in if you're swinging it around. It'll just fly off. The nipple most definitely helps lock it place.
I have a bad habit of machining things with a slightly looser tolerance. If the bushing in the emitter would have a purpose, it would be to help secure the emitter and have it spin, had the steel collar pressure fit into the lower neck/windvane. On this piece, I have paper shims to help wedge it all together. Though I'm kinda glad it doesn't. Nothing is straight in this. The square dowel isn't, so it adds a wobble; the steel d/s isn't, which early on had areas catching on the inside of the hilt, which created friction which had problems on the motor; it's the whole reason I can't accept that the stunt hilt was machined as a single static piece from a cast source. The cast is too wonky.
You'd have to do something similar to how I had to handle it: find center of the neck, bore in; flip around, find center of the booster/lower half of the body, bore in; have the two channels meet and have them have enough clearance for the d/s to spin freely. Do the same for the emitter. It's the only method I've come up with to make sure something that's as off-center as the raw cast be centered as possible to have the internals work smoothly.
Last edited:
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
That looks fantastic! Great job PPP. This is real progress. I sure think they may well have tried exactly what you have produced here then addressed all the issues with one made from bar stock & possibly also a bearing for the d/s in the emitter. Our experiments are the only way to progress with these stunts (in the absence of genuine untouched ANH specimens ). I want get going with mine again but I've so much sh!t to deal with mentally at the moment it's hard to get going on anything. (Your Alec.G voice - Priceless )
)
I really love this project, amazing work PPP!
Outstanding work. Job well done, and well deserved, you’ve been cracking away at this for a long time, your dedication has proven to pay off
Good for you man
I’m currently working on “motorized stunt club” badges for us you, mouse, vadermania kurtboy..
Get ready lol
Good for you man
I’m currently working on “motorized stunt club” badges for us
you, mouse, vadermania kurtboy..Get ready lol
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
That's really nice of you Halliwax. Look forward to seeing them.
That looks fantastic! Great job PPP. This is real progress. I sure think they may well have tried exactly what you have produced here then addressed all the issues with one made from bar stock & possibly also a bearing for the d/s in the emitter. Our experiments are the only way to progress with these stunts (in the absence of genuine untouched ANH specimens ). I want get going with mine again but I've so much sh!t to deal with mentally at the moment it's hard to get going on anything. (Your Alec.G voice - Priceless
The emitter bushing is a good possibility but in light of there not being evidence of other sabers made from bar stock from ANH, and the doubtful possibility of the actual V2 undergoing metallurgical analysis, I have to favor the idea that the ANH-era sabers were all made from casts, with the exception of small components like the nipple and whatever else.
I don't know exactly why they'd go this route, it's all so convoluted and a waste of time. However, the UK film industry at the time had favorable tax credits for productions coming from overseas, and a lot of industry workers were unemployed at the time. I.E.- R2-D2 was purportedly designed and built by out-of-work aeronautic engineers. My guess, and this is no way a slant against those who worked on it at the time, was that despite the only upside to forging and sand-casting was being able to make exact duplicates of a cast to work from; the method was just a way to eat time and get paid. Unless the production was truly hurting for resources, forging would be an option to get something from scraps.
They must've had limited resources considering the relatively small budget SW had, but surely machining something from stock was the more efficient way to go. But they didn't. I've heard anecdotally that pre-production couldn't even afford lumber to build anything, so perhaps it really was due to a lack of materials that they went with forging from alu scrap to make the hilts. All extant evidence shows that these guys weren't slouches when it came to producing machinable casts, so perhaps this wasn't such a big problem for them to tackle.
Similar threads
