Millenium Falcon "landing claw"

Redfinger

Well-Known Member
I am winding up to do a 1/144 diorama of the MF on the back of the SD tower. I have got the SD hull all drawn out and will be starting it once I find a suitable surface to display everything on. SO onto my question....

In the ESB Han tells Chewy to go back and stand by the manual release for the landing claw. I have been exhausting all the resources I have to try and identify how and where this piece of equipment would be;

On Wookiepedia a landing claw is described as a generic piece of equipment that is fitted to smaller ships to allow them to land or adhere to various surfaces either by magnetic, or grasping methods.

In the Millenium Falcon 3d users manual the landing gear is described as having grasping and magnetic properties to allow it to adhere to various surfaces.

So is it safe to assume they are the same? Another question that this brings up then, if the landing gear is also the landing claw, how many were deployed when the Falcon sat perched on the hull of the SD? I am leaning toward one myself.

Also, taking a look at this image;

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/ep5/avenger2.jpg

To me it appears as if the MF is sitting pretty low against the hull..so would that mean the landing claw can be controlled as to how far it keeps the ship away from the docked surface?

And lastly, is anyone aware of what the angle is of the back of the SD tower? I would like to display this project at that angle.

Thanks,

Ashton
 
The Haynes book has an image of the foot:
landinggear.jpg


It doesn't demonstrate a "claw" but does illustrate electromagnets

J
 
Jaitea,

Thanks for the reference!! I appreciate it. I think what I will end up doing is using the landing gear, still deciding how many to put down, and how high or low the falcon will sit.

Ashton
 
I'm sure some remember the Selayana Corellian Frieghter blueprints that were released many years ago. Not canon, but it did depict the landing claw forward of the lower turret.

TazMan2000
 
Last edited:
I'm sure some remember the Selayna Corellian Frieghter blueprints that were released many years ago. Not canon, but it did depict the landing claw forward of the lower turret.

TazMan2000

I am not familiar with those blue prints, would you mind elaborating on that a little? What is funny is that that is about the spot I was considering putting the claw before I decided on just using the landing gear, I may have to give it a 2nd thought now.

Ashton
 
I just noticed something, those "lights" on the star destroyer are probably inspection windows in hallways so technicians can look out over miscellaneous structures for visual inspection.

After galavanting through an asteroid field, I think every tech would be checking the hull...

And nobody noticed a freighter stuck to the back of the tower?
 
I just noticed something, those "lights" on the star destroyer are probably inspection windows in hallways so technicians can look out over miscellaneous structures for visual inspection.

After galavanting through an asteroid field, I think every tech would be checking the hull...

And nobody noticed a freighter stuck to the back of the tower?

The MF covered up Boba Fett's bathroom window. As soon as Boba saw this he hopped into his ship and waited on the other side of the conning tower. That part was cut out of the film. lol.

TazMan2000
 
I am not familiar with those blue prints, would you mind elaborating on that a little? What is funny is that that is about the spot I was considering putting the claw before I decided on just using the landing gear, I may have to give it a 2nd thought now.

Ashton

I'm not sure who released them but I don't believe it was licensed by Lucasfilm. But I could be wrong. There are apparently some accuracty issues, but I haven't ever heard of accurate blueprints for the MF. You can still pick them up on ebay and such.
Starbasealtanta has a set going for 10 bucks.

Look at this thread.
http://www.therpf.com/f10/5ft-falcon-build-plans-103858/

TazMan2000
 
This thread is more than 11 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top