Magic of Myth ( MoM ) Luke RotJ Hero ( cave build ) lightsaber research, images, reference, & collaborative model builder's discussion.
- Thread starter BRRogers
- Start date
The emitter holes on most of the castings floating around that I have seen are larger than the screen used original as well. Sorry this indicates that those details are not on the metal prop
Been following this conversation with interest. I'm interested to know how far down the neck the blade sat too. I agree with thd9791 that the length of the nipple doesn't seem sufficient. Thought I'd just check the photos for evidence of more retention screws. And there it is! What looks to me like a retention screw on the black part of the thin neck, exactly in line with the one on the nipple. Is it possible that the blade went this far down?? Or is this just holding the hilt together? Either way, has this screw ever been mentioned? It's the first time I've noticed it to be honest.
Hm, do you think this goes for the 2nd, deeper hole as well? Curious if, in your reference, you can make that decision without having to show us
Is it possible that part of a blade is still in there? Broken off, of just secured in there to give the thin neck more strength? That second screw has got me wondering now. If something hollow was used, it would give the appearance of a second smaller hole that's been mentioned too. Just speculating obviously. I'm fairly certain that's a screw though. Now I've seen it, it's on every photo. Clear as day.
It's on the black section of the neck, exactly in line with the nipple retention screw. It looks an awful lot like an Allen head set screw to me. I might be wrong though. It's funny that it's exactly in line with the nipple screw though, and it's on every photo.
I never interpreted that as a set screw since there’s no surface variation, but paint chipping which is common and consistent everywhere else on the saber.
Regardless of wether a short stunt blade was in the Yuma (pics?) it wouldn’t have required a support rod that went that deep if the thin areas were solid cast aluminum (or machined)
The single retention screw in the nipple should have sufficed.
From a production standpoint also: you wouldn’t necessarily want a stunt rod (the shorty) to be so well affixed that it *wouldnt* fail and potentially damage the prop or another actor. If it accidentally struck someone, as opposed to the dueling stunts (where their intent was for traditional dueling and not sweeping destruction)... you’d want it to be able to separate relatively easily... or comparatively rather
To wit...
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
If you're referring to the two white spots on the black part of the neck, between the wind vane & grenade section they caught me out in just the same way earlier in this thread & for exactly the same reason. I studied all the pictures I could closely & had to change my mind, I'm now sure paint chips.
Yeah. It definitely had me fooled there for a second. Easy mistake to make though. It looks a lot like a grub screw in most of the other images. Two parallel highlights. It's exactly in line with the other one, and even appears to be visible on the Yuma image. I figured the Yuma would have been completely repainted for the ISYHCANL scene, so that convinced me it was a physical feature even further.
That image settles it for me though. More than happy to change my mind and follow where the evidence takes me. The images I was looking at last night had me convinced it was a set screw. I'm glad it's not to be honest! Didn't mean to muddy the waters. I'm genuinely interested in finding the truth.
I'm still interested in the idea that some material from one of the blades could still be secured in the emitter. The question of how deep the blade housing goes is one of the few areas I'm still not certain about.
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
Oh the perils of interpreting photo's.
I've mostly been keeping up with this thread, and don't remember this being asked (though maybe I missed it):
Is the mating face of the control box to the saber
A) curved (the bottom of the box cut out with the side of a 1.5" diameter end mill),
or
B) flat (the side of the lightsaber body cut away with an end mill, as seen on Dann's Rylo saber)?
I can see the bevels having a practical purpose for both options... For A, bevels remove a sharp edge left by the round cut, and would help snug down the box in case the saber body is not exactly the same diameter as the end mill. For B, given the box is wider than the flat area, the bevels will bring the box base edges in to meet the width of the flat.
I went with A when machining one years ago, as it seemed easier to get a good mate with no gaps using manual machines (and screwing up a control box is not as big a problem as taking too big a cut on your saber body). Just not sure if there is any hard evidence to support this?
Is the mating face of the control box to the saber
A) curved (the bottom of the box cut out with the side of a 1.5" diameter end mill),
or
B) flat (the side of the lightsaber body cut away with an end mill, as seen on Dann's Rylo saber)?
I can see the bevels having a practical purpose for both options... For A, bevels remove a sharp edge left by the round cut, and would help snug down the box in case the saber body is not exactly the same diameter as the end mill. For B, given the box is wider than the flat area, the bevels will bring the box base edges in to meet the width of the flat.
I went with A when machining one years ago, as it seemed easier to get a good mate with no gaps using manual machines (and screwing up a control box is not as big a problem as taking too big a cut on your saber body). Just not sure if there is any hard evidence to support this?
That is a good question:
I have to believe that (A) the bottom of the box is curved.
Supporting this theory is the idea that, if you milled a flat face into body your tolerances would need to be flawless to ensure there’s no gap. Furthermore the box itself would need to be perfectly machined to match (90° precision). Photo examples show pretty clearly that the gap is indiscernible and tight.
Which isn’t impossible to do.
BUT, the control box isnt actually square, and it does not sit perfectly squarely.
Considering the gap is tight but the control box sits out of alignment I’m confident that the bottom is a curved cut and is press-fit to the body with the two screws seen on the Yuma; it being hollowed out for the cave build probably created some warping as well where, as I mentioned, it wouldn’t fit in the channel cleanly anymore if that’s how it was done.
But of course, impossible to discern without examining closely inhand
I have to believe that (A) the bottom of the box is curved.
Supporting this theory is the idea that, if you milled a flat face into body your tolerances would need to be flawless to ensure there’s no gap. Furthermore the box itself would need to be perfectly machined to match (90° precision). Photo examples show pretty clearly that the gap is indiscernible and tight.
Which isn’t impossible to do.
BUT, the control box isnt actually square, and it does not sit perfectly squarely.
Considering the gap is tight but the control box sits out of alignment I’m confident that the bottom is a curved cut and is press-fit to the body with the two screws seen on the Yuma; it being hollowed out for the cave build probably created some warping as well where, as I mentioned, it wouldn’t fit in the channel cleanly anymore if that’s how it was done.
But of course, impossible to discern without examining closely inhand
I want to agree with that theory, but it's hard to not think that it's just a flat milled into the body. That just seems so much simpler and faster.
And like you said, it wouldn't make sense if the box was off center. I personally don't see that, but I realize y'all have been studying this thing more than I have.
I'd like to know the truth, as well!
And like you said, it wouldn't make sense if the box was off center. I personally don't see that, but I realize y'all have been studying this thing more than I have.
I'd like to know the truth, as well!
View attachment 1038667
Off center but also twisted a bit. If you didn’t see this particular photo from earlier
View attachment 1038667
See
Thanks again teecrooz
This is one of many (thousands probably haha) of very fast finger scrawlings I’ve given drizzt1234 to convey design problems while we’ve been working on honing in this model
Off center but also twisted a bit. If you didn’t see this particular photo from earlier
Keep in mind though that that doesn't necessarily mean that the original machined saber was that wonky - resin castings can do weird things if you pull them out of a mold before they're fully cured and completely rigid. On top of that, if you were to take a wonky casting and remold it, that could potentially exacerbate the wonkiness.
Similar threads
