Scratchbuilt Millennium Falcon 1/72nd

[Archive&Future]

What also throws off the MPC is the oversized radar dish. Should be roughly the same diameter as the cockpit tube.

But, really, now that the Bandai is on the way I never have to think about the MPC ever again. (except how I'm going to get rid of the two currently sitting unbuilt in my stash)

I'll have 'em!

 

[gt350pony66]

What also throws off the MPC is the oversized radar dish. Should be roughly the same diameter as the cockpit tube.

But, really, now that the Bandai is on the way I never have to think about the MPC ever again. (except how I'm going to get rid of the two currently sitting unbuilt in my stash)

well, I'm still a believer in the MPC, I have like 10 of them left in the closet. I binge bought on Ebay the ones that were reasonably priced. Now that HH has provided the proper pieces to make corrections, and the 308 bits from Tony, you can still build a good looking ship from an MPC. For myself, I like the challenge of making it all fit together. lots of work, yes...but the satisfaction factor is very high.
The price tag of the Bandai is pretty steep, and I have a Fine Molds that I bought for like 210.00 I think, but after 5 builds of the MPC and the 5th being the latest and the only one so far with HH parts, I feel like I can build a ship that looks every bit as good as a FM and still be less that 200.00 in parts.
I guess it's all about what you want to get out of the build. If you want to dump those MPC kits I might be interested if the price is right and the critical parts are free of any warpage. .
If you care to, check out HH's other thread on his latest upgrade kit. There are pics of my latest build which I am very pleased with. Add to that, I am not one that's overly concerned with total screen accuracy so that's why I talk the way I do.
all just my opinion and I don't knock anyone who thinks otherwise in the least.

Cheers my friend

 

[rbeach84]

HH, better than the original? (gasp!) Just think of the acrobatic manuevers possible if they had had your model for the films (2,3) to represent the 5-footer...

Just marvelous!

Regards, Robert

 

[Archive&Future]

Cockpit canopy trim finished, panelling done, additional bars put in and windows blocked out in preparation for moulding!

 

[Jaitea]

Stunning work HH

J

 

[jake88]

HH, your blowing Bandai out of the water! Brilliant!

 

[ozzyguanche]

So the MPC cockpit and tunnel are the correct diameter after all? I'm confused sorry.

My 10c if I may on this subject.

If the outer saucer is used as the base scale of the model, then the cockpit is correct scale, but much of the rest of the model is out of scale and needs to be adisted including the mandible length etc.

If however the outer saucer is viewed as too small and is corrected then much of the model becomes in scale.

Side walls, always out of scale!! no mater which approach you take.

Cheers Ozzy

 

[Andrew C.]

Wow, that is looking great! Have to fight the urge to dig out my MPC kit and build it.

 

[gt350pony66]

fight the urge? come on, you know you're going to...but you first MUST have Haystacks latest upgrade set...makes ALL the difference. JMO

Wow, that is looking great! Have to fight the urge to dig out my MPC kit and build it.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Archive&Future]

This week the machine I have highly coveted for some time is now mine- a gorgeous and well-loved Smart & Brown engineering lathe.
This was the machine I turned the aluminium central unit for the Falcon on back last year.


Today I mixed up a cup of resin and allowed it to cure in the cup to create a billet which I then machined into a far more accurate (Mk.III I suppose?) docking ring. The intention is, of course, to mould and cast this master.

 

[SMA]

Great work man. Looks killer.

 

[Roboted]

That idea of making a resin Billet is very cool and very clever. You are a true craftsman Sir

 

[Archive&Future]

I'm not sure if it's a mathematical error or a plain old 'staring-me right-in-the-face' type error, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to make the docking ring be 1) The correct taper (15°) while also being 2) The correct depth and still maintain 3) The known correct opening diameter of 40mm


The only way I can figure is perhaps reducing the diameter of the greeble aperture, to be more like 36mm rather than 40mm as it's supposed to be...
If I have the correct depth, I have to sacrifice the accuracy of either the opening diameter or the angle of taper


I'm assuming I've made a calculation error waaay back with the docking corridors, OR I've extended the outer panelling slightly too far.


What are your thoughts? It's a nightmare trying to reconcile my dimensions against reference imagery and existing kits (here you see the Bandai 1/144 for comparison)
I'm not sure whether to live with it or redress the issue by starting over....

 

[gt350pony66]

how about the plate that that your collar there mounts to? can you do anything with that to compensate? I like the taper...looks like what's called the "5 footer", but it does look shallow. I thought that was because the plate wasn't present. Now, don't take this the wrong way, ok...you're a cool guy and I don't want to be on your crap list in any way...
you remember the pics I posted of Tony's newer version collars? If that's the look your after you could pull his dimensions and apply them you your design, right? that way you wouldn't be copying anything...just researching the dimensions he used to achieve the same, or perhaps better results. could be a starting point though, change the dimensions a bit if you think it needs it. I mean I know you'd rather have it be 100% yours top to bottom, I get that. but if you're tired of beating your head against the wall...
just a thought brother...don't blacklist me...I'm a big fan :thumbsup

 

[Archive&Future]

how about the plate that that your collar there mounts to? can you do anything with that to compensate? I like the taper...looks like what's called the "5 footer", but it does look shallow. I thought that was because the plate wasn't present. Now, don't take this the wrong way, ok...you're a cool guy and I don't want to be on your crap list in any way...
you remember the pics I posted of Tony's newer version collars? If that's the look your after you could pull his dimensions and apply them you your design, right? that way you wouldn't be copying anything...just researching the dimensions he used to achieve the same, or perhaps better results. could be a starting point though, change the dimensions a bit if you think it needs it. I mean I know you'd rather have it be 100% yours top to bottom, I get that. but if you're tired of beating your head against the wall...
just a thought brother...don't blacklist me...I'm a big fan :thumbsup

Constructive criticism is healthy and much appreciated, and I hadn't thought of talking to Tony about it, great idea!
I'll message him and ask him if he's willing to send me some dimensions.
My current piece is definitely too shallow, I just can't figure out where the compromise that will make it feel better lies

 

[gt350pony66]

ok, wow...I'm glad you took that in the spirit it was intended. If you'd rather...I've got a set of his collars at home and a good digital caliper. I'd be glad to round up the info for you if you want to go that route. I'm leaving work now, then out for Friday night dinner with the wife. my phone gives me a heads up to subscribed thread activity.

Constructive criticism is healthy and much appreciated, and I hadn't thought of talking to Tony about it, great idea!
I'll message him and ask him if he's willing to send me some dimensions.
My current piece is definitely too shallow, I just can't figure out where the compromise that will make it feel better lies

- - - Updated - - -

:thumbsup

 

[Roboted]

I'm not sure if it's a mathematical error or a plain old 'staring-me right-in-the-face' type error, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to make the docking ring be 1) The correct taper (15°) while also being 2) The correct depth and still maintain 3) The known correct opening diameter of 40mm


The only way I can figure is perhaps reducing the diameter of the greeble aperture, to be more like 36mm rather than 40mm as it's supposed to be...
If I have the correct depth, I have to sacrifice the accuracy of either the opening diameter or the angle of taper


I'm assuming I've made a calculation error waaay back with the docking corridors, OR I've extended the outer panelling slightly too far.


What are your thoughts? It's a nightmare trying to reconcile my dimensions against reference imagery and existing kits (here you see the Bandai 1/144 for comparison)
I'm not sure whether to live with it or redress the issue by starting over....

I feel your pain,Everytime you change one small thing, it throws out something else. I think your very close but imo it need a fraction more depth, but im sure even i could be wrong as im not the most realible at getting things spot on as you know lol.

 

[DanielB]

Firstly, let me say...this is ammmaazzinnng.

Second, you could have saved yourself a lot of hassle waiting on the Bandai...lol. Still, I'm sure you'll have much more pride in your work from scratch than doing a kit. So inspired by this, thank you!

 

[Roboted]

Firstly, let me say...this is ammmaazzinnng.

Second, you could have saved yourself a lot of hassle waiting on the Bandai...lol. Still, I'm sure you'll have much more pride in your work from scratch than doing a kit. So inspired by this, thank you!

I like the way you give yourself an out, its very clever and thought through, YOU ****** BAG....Only joking, I appreciate your right for free speech and maybe you have a great and funny thought or maybe you dont...Either way i get to keep all the Haribo

 

[Archive&Future]

Slow and incremental work as always