What scale is the 5 foot Millennium Falcon?

Hi guys. Does anyone know what scale the 5 foot Millennium Falcon is? I would really appreciate it if anyone could help me out.

 

That kinda depends on how long you think a full sized Falcon would be, and how long you think the 5' falcon is.

Depending on source you can get a length for the full sized Falcon as anything between 80ft and 152ft

many people seem to agree that Robert Brown's calculations as documented on his Ship of Riddles site are about right - certainly that's what the Full Scale Falcon guys are working to. That would give an overall length of 114ft or 34.74m

as for the 5' Falcon, Star Wars Chronicles lists the model made for ANH as 173cm (or 68 inches and change). <- way more than 5' btw, but that's not the measurement that everyone who tries a 5' necessarily uses.

Extrapolating from these two figures, a 5' (ish) Falcon is about 1:20 (ish) but I've seen it given as 1:24, and it's pretty easy to generate as large as 1:17 with other combinations of figures.

To be honest you may as well be asking how long is a piece of string? Nobody knows for certain, not least because the full scale Falcon (more than one set in each movie) was a) not actually to scale and b) not fully built, and it's difficult if not impossible to get close enough to the 5' model that attends the shows to get exact measurements. A brief search of these very forums will turn up a number of build plans with minor differences (that may well become major if/when you actually come to do anything with them) It's usual to start with the known parts used for greeblies, and size the ship from there, but even then it's difficult to agree exactly.

 

I've always heard it is 1:24ish.

 

So far the Robert Brown numbers are most accepted and agreed upon numbers for the size of the original 1:1 scale ship. So here's how you calculate the scale. If the length of the ship is 114' long, and you want to find out the scale of the 5' model you divide 114 by 5 and get a result of 22.8 or roughly 1/23 scale. Now that's a rough estimate based on the assumption that the 5 footer is actually 5 feet long. According to the number above it was 68 inches long which means 5.67 feet So using that number up divide 114 by 5.67 and you get 20.11 or 1/20 scale. Scale basically means if you were take the scaled down version, and place 20 of them end to end you would equal the length of the full scale version. Scale numbers are usually rounded to the nearest whole number. Because it's easier to say 1/20th scale then to say 1/20.11th scale. But basically it all depends on the numbers you are looking at. And as you can see... the difference of only 8 inches is the difference between 1/23rd and 1/20th scale.

 

Since there was no "real" MillFalcon, it is somewhat nonsensical to discuss scale. In essence, the "5 footer" WAS the real MF and hence was 1:1 scale. Scaling a model in such situations boils down to 'how big does it look?' Robert Brown & others have attempted to walk the analysis tightrope and make a reasonable correlation between the interior and exterior sets with typically a bias towards the interior sets in order to come up with some working dimensions. For you as the modeler, it is a judgement call & if their work is acceptable, then go with it. For me personally, I am calling the Hasbro Hero 28" 'toy model' at 1:48 scale - close enough to make it fit with the rest of my 1:48 scale collection!

For "practical" reasons, I assume the approximately 5-foot long ANH MillFalcon to be 1:24 scale - aka 'dollhouse scale' - simply because you can park a 1:24 Corvette by the ramp! ;^P

Regards, Robert

 

I guess it all depends on your level of OCD. If you want to be a stickler, you'd use a 1/20th scale for the 5 footer... but personally I think anywhere between 1/20th and 1/24th scale wouldn't be very noticable.

 

They did build a full scale MF for ANH, where are the measurements for that?

 

Actually that Falcon that was "full scale" wasn't... in ANH it was only a side façade. You can tell in the tattoonie hanger because the radar dish is missing. They did build a "full scale" complete for ESB but both of those were only 3/4 the size of what a full scale should have been.

 

Actually that Falcon that was "full scale" wasn't... in ANH it was only a side façade. You can tell in the tattoonie hanger because the radar dish is missing. They did build a "full scale" complete for ESB but both of those were only 3/4 the size of what a full scale should have been. On a happy note... a full 1:1 scale 114 foot Falcon has been built by J.J. for Disney World. Complete with the full interior and completely accurate to the films. It will be put on display for tours when the new Star Wars area in Disney World is completed. Can't wait to see it!

 

<br>
<br>
Actually that Falcon that was "full scale" wasn't... in ANH it was only a side façade. You can tell in the tattoonie hanger because the radar dish is missing. They did build a "full scale" complete for ESB but both of those were only 3/4 the size of what a full scale should have been.&nbsp; On a happy note... a full 1:1 scale 114 foot Falcon has been built by J.J. for Disney World.&nbsp; Complete with the full interior and completely accurate to the films.&nbsp; It will be put on display for tours when the new Star Wars area in Disney World is completed.&nbsp; Can't wait to see it!<br>
<br>

 

that's something I will have to see

 

The Falcon has about 3 different sizes:


The 5ft model was the first thing ever built. It has 1:24 model seats inside. The ILM crew built all the ships that were dogfighting in ANH to that same 1:24 scale in case it proved useful. This points to a monstrously big 136ft full size ship.

The soundstage sets were extrapolated off the 5ft model. They were never even ballpark close to fitting each other or the ILM models. The interior sets suggest a 114ft Falcon. The cockpit got 18" deeper (front to back) for ESB & ROTJ to give the actors more room inside.

The 1:1 exterior shells (just the right side for ANH, and the whole ship for ESB) were radically undersized to fit on the soundstages. They were only 82ft long. You can visibly see the cockpit is too small (compared to the interior scenes) when they are walking around underneath it.



The closest thing to an official size, as of 2015, is the 114ft interior size. For Ep#7 they have built the 1:1 scale exterior shell that big for the first time.

 

If you are interested in a scale to a “real life” sized Falcon AND want to be real nit-pickky about it (i.e., a rivet counter), below is my take on the scale.

So far, my own work reveals Bob Brown’s estimate of 114 feet for a “real life” Falcon to be most excellent. Could it be different? Sure, but that is what I will go with.

Furthermore, I had determined many years ago that the base, un-greeblied falcon length to be 64 inches. My estimates for the engine flap greebly and the “headlight housing” greebly as applied to the engine deck and mandible tips, respectively, gives a total length of 64.539625 inches.

To be clear, the engine flap greebly I refer to is from the M8 Munitions Carrier and 8" Howitzer kit and the “headlight housing” greebly I refer to is from the Ferrari 312B kit.

From the 114 foot “full size” length I choose to be correct, and my estimate of 64.539625 inches for the “5-footer” length, I calculate a scale of 1/21.1962805795664.

Since I do not have access to the actual greeblies in question, there is undoubtedly some error in my final length, and therefore scale, but I’d wager this error is not very much at all.

It could be that ILM was going for a total model length of 64.5 inches, and IF they succeeded in achieving this total length, some or all of the following cases may apply to my total estimate:

• my “front-to-back” length estimate of the plow part used for the engine flap greebly is off a little.

• my placement estimate of the “front-to-back” of the plow part used for the engine flap greebly is off a little.

• my “front-to-back” length estimate of the “headlight housing” greebly is off a little.

Keep in mind, however, that it is unlikely for those greeblies to measure out to an exact 1/2 inch when added to a 64 inch long base Falcon model.

Mark

 

Thanks fr this guys, I am scratch building key components for the hasbro which I am building as ANH , my conversions were getting screwed up as I was getting distracted by the scale of the parts used .....this has cleared it up. See sketch of 1/5 rotary engine , I have been using all references gathered here and in various books, while it's ok to work things out by eye in porportion to another feature it's great when a measurement confirms a position . You can see my reference gathered in my profile photo gallery BTW seeing the actual size of this piece drawn out gives a real appreciation of the size of the original

 

How do you find this gallery? Sorry for my ignorance...

 

Album in my profile http://www.therpf.com/album.php?albumid=5233, I gathered together all the reference shots on this site and batched them together by features on the falcon, I will do one later for paint scheme

 

Awesome Vacformedhero, sometimes I feel like such an idiot asking basic questions like that (I didn't realize we had albums), but thank you for linking for me! I look forward to your paint scheme album, the falcon colors are something I am currently researching...

 

136' is good. Why would that be 'monstrous'? No truly full-size mockup has been built, but why build a 136' mockup when you can easily skimp and nobody will even notice til years later. We're all familiar with the problems of the sets not fitting within the mockup shells. Most of that if not all of it goes away at 136'.

ILM used 1/24 for many of the Star Wars ship models - the fighters, the final 5'-ish Falcon, I've never done the numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if the Pirate Ship was 1/24 too, originally. These were treated *by the OT productions* as the definitive research materials.

Works for me.

 

I figured 1:18

 

That'd be a 102' ship. Bit cramped.

 

I recall adding things up a couple years ago and finding that a 136' ship is too big to match the 1:1 soundstage cockpit sets.


IMO those cockpit sets are the most crucial interlock of the interior & exterior sets. Cockpits are usually the best place to find a match in general. But in the Falcon's case the cockpit also gets a ton of close-quarters screen time. And aside from that depth addition in ESB it didn't get changed very much over the course of 3 movies.

So, take the ILM 5ft model and scale it up until the cockpit sets fit right. Whatever that is, it's the closest to a correct scale we can get IMO. I can't recall the number now but I think it was more like 114' than 136'.

The rest of the soundstage interiors probably won't fit quite right that way. But those are not entirely reconcilable with the exterior not matter what size you pick. If they're close then I say go with it. The only other option is to change the exterior's proportions.

 

You may be right, never looked at the cockpit sets in a ton of detail. They're a 10' diameter like the TIE cockpit, IIRC, right?

 

So would 10" PVC be about right to make a 1/12 scale for the 6" black series?

 

I checked the set drawings, the max interior diameter of the cockpit tube was about 9.1' so a 10' exterior seems pretty reasonable. I concede that approach does give less than 115' total length, in fact going by the BMB drawings, I'm getting 111'.

Sooooo the interior sets are also underscaled, just not as badly. :lol Seriously, your approach is as valid as any.

- - - Updated - - -

cavx, that'd be very slightly over-scale for the interior diameter, but I doubt it'd be noticeable.

 

Doing the math - it seems like 5.75" is the decided diameter of the cockpit tube on the 5ft ILM model. Scaled up x 24 = 11.5' cockpit tube on the 1:1 scale ship.

Figuring on a 5'8" (68") length for the ILM model + a 10.0' soundstage exterior cockpit = I'll spare you the math but it lands near the 114' total ship length number. It points to the 5ft ILM minature being roughly 1/20th scale.



Trivia:

-- As other people have pointed out over the years, this makes the original 5ft ILM model almost precisely the correct size to match the classic Star Wars toy action figures. (No wonder they always under-sized the MF toys a bit!)

-- If the ANH set builders had kept the ILM model's original (oversize 136') scale, the toy action figures would match a toy MF that is roughly 82" with a 57" dish diameter.

-- So what is a "correct" size 1/24th scale miniature Falcon, for a 114' full scale ship? In hindsight the original ILM model should have been 4'8" (56") long, with the 48" dish diameter reduced to 40".

 

WOW I cannot believe that everyone is still debating and doing math about a subject that has been scrutinized extensively since the movie came out in 77. You all really need to check into the work of Robert Brown and the Ship of Riddles site. It's because of him we actually have a scale for the Falcon to begin with... and it took him close to 20 years to come up with the data!

 

I’m not debating it. Perhaps my earlier post bears re-reading, or reading in the first place if anyone skipped over it. My determination of 64 inches for the base length of the “5-footer” is quite accurate, and has been verified and beaten to death in long dead and gone threads on other BBs. The only real variables are the lengths of the frontmost and rearmost greeblies, and the positioning of the rearmost greeblies. And my estimates of those are really freaking close.

Mark

 

I've read Robert Brown's stuff too. It's THE definitive work on the ship. Probably always will be.

 

So basically you're trying to get the numbers down to the micromillimeter scale so that everything is accurate and precise. I thought I had OCD! Ok... so... copying my post from post #4 on this matter... here is the same information that seems to be overlooked:

So far the Robert Brown numbers are most accepted and agreed upon numbers for the size of the original 1:1 scale ship. So here's how you calculate the scale. If the length of the ship is 114' long, and you want to find out the scale of the 5' model you divide 114 by 5 and get a result of 22.8 or roughly 1/23 scale. Now that's a rough estimate based on the assumption that the 5 footer is actually 5 feet long. According to the number above it was 68 inches long which means 5.67 feet So using that number up divide 114 by 5.67 and you get 20.11 or 1/20 scale. Scale basically means if you were take the scaled down version, and place 20 of them end to end you would equal the length of the full scale version. Scale numbers are usually rounded to the nearest whole number. Because it's easier to say 1/20th scale then to say 1/20.11th scale. But basically it all depends on the numbers you are looking at. And as you can see... the difference of only 8 inches is the difference between 1/23rd and 1/20th scale. ​

And from post #13

From the 114 foot “full size” length I choose to be correct, and my estimate of 64.539625 inches for the “5-footer” length, I calculate a scale of 1/21.1962805795664.

So... if you want to be a stickler, and go with the actual length of the 5'footer with the greeblies on each end you're looking at a actual length of 64.539625 making the scale 1:21.19628057897664 precisely. Does that solve the issue anymore or should I provide photo evidence?

 

Hmmm . . . .

Here's a much simpler way to say all this:


68" ILM model: 1/20

64" ILM model: 1/21



I have no personal opinion about the actual length of the ILM model. I am only crunching other people's numbers.

Even if 64" is absolutely the right number, I think the 68" figure is repeated often enough that it's better to keep mentioning both computed scales, just for clarity. For example, if we were to only repeat the figure that the ship is 1/21 scale, and somebody hears that but is also working with the 68" length figure, that just breeds more confusion.

 

I believe that it was Fine Molds that had exclusive access to the 5 footer when they came out with their Falcon model and they did accurate measurements and discovered the length was exactly 64.539625 inches (that's with the greeblies).

 

Bizarre,....and the FM Falcon is based on the 32",....I'd have preferred if they would have made their model on the 5 footer

....and it is worth noting that their measurements & dimensions of the 32" was a complete balls up

J

 

I know there was some company recently that has access to the 5 footer... can't remember who thou. Thought it could have been Fine Molds. Do you remember J?

 

I honestly don't know Lrd,....I know that the new digital Falcon that we've seen in the Teasers is of the 5 footer,......lets hope those files have been given to Bandai

J

 

I'm keeping my fingers crossed!

 

Yeah, for better or worse we probably have a single permanent MF design moving forward. Modern filmmaking & merchandising does not tolerate the kind of fast & loose inconsistencies that the MF had back in the day. They would have wanted everyone working from a single detailed 3D file for the whole exterior at the very least.

 

Nah, I didn’t overlook your post #4, nor any others for that matter. You said that you couldn’t believe “*everyone* is still debating…”, which prompted me to say “I’m not debating it.” And in reading my post #13, my very 1st sentence (“If you are interested in a scale to a “real life” sized Falcon AND want to be real nit-pickky about it (i.e., a rivet counter), below is my take on the scale”) sets the tone for the rest of that post.

I wasn’t actually taking exception with anything you said beyond the “*everyone* is still debating…” in post #27. The very next sentence of my post included the words “if *anyone* skipped over it” was meant to be for the readership in general, not you personally.

Missing from post #13 was the fact that I have extremely high confidence in the 64" total base length, so I decided to add it in post #27, and gave my reasons for it. I have never had access to the “5-footer”, so there will always be a margin of doubt. Because of that, I have no real reason to contest you or anyone for believing the real length is 68". However, given my long history with this beast and the independent verifications I’ve been fortunate to get, I personally believe the 68" published value is not correct. Could I be wrong? Maybe, but I don”t think so.

Mark

 

Really! Now that is news to me! If you’re not pulling my leg, then perhaps Fine Molds’ efforts have independently confirmed my efforts. Huh.

Mark

 

You’re right. This one escapes me…FM had access to the “5-footer”, even went to the trouble to measure the thing, yet decided to make the 32 incher and couldn’t get it right…er, like you said.

Mark

 

That's what I thought... I knew that DeAgo (Steve Dymszo) had exclusive access to the 32" incher and was the first to have ever used a scanner to get exact measurements. The Fine Molds team on the other hand had access to the 5' Footer and even thou they did accurate measurements of the 5' footer ended up doing a 32" incher instead using the 5' footer measurements as a base, which kinda threw all of the measurements out of whack and caused the famous Fine Molds Mandible "toe-in" problem. But regardless that original measurement of 64.539625 inches for the length (which included the greeblies on the front and back) is probably the best measurement for discovering scale. I wasn't trying to berate ya Darth... just find it silly that here it is almost 40 years later, it took people 20 years to figure out the math for the actual size and to agree on that measurement, and yet there are still alot of people that are debating and trying to come up with different numbers. I believe however that the scale of 1/20th (or more precisely 1:21.19628057897664) for the 5' footer is probably the most accepted. It would be nice if we could just have some hard numbers that everyone agrees on and move on!

As far as the Fine Molds Falcon... I was completely on board getting one until I learned that it was actually smaller then the AMT/Ertl... I think they really should have done it a few inches bigger then that one and I would have snatched one up ASAP! I understand they were trying to come up with a standardize scale for them... but 1:76 was a bit on the small side. Would have been nicer if they did a 1:64 scale and used taht as the basis for all the other models they came out with. They would have been bigger, had more detail and would have been easier to handle and assemble.

 

I love you guys... I really do.

But lets face facts here. The ANH Falcon was not built to a specific Scale. The guys that built it went for "roughly" 1/24 to be in the "rough" scale of the fighters. But they were not in any way slavish to their devotion to exact scale. Trying to reconcile the live action sets to the models is a path to a migraine and an unsatisfactory answer any way you cut it. So the answer to this discussion depends on whether you're a glass half empty or glass half full kind of person. Either everybody is right, or everybody is wrong. Arguments - valid ones - can and have been made for a plethora of answers.

My advice pick the theory that you agree most with and have at it. NOBODY can prove you're wrong - even though they may take the argument to the grave.

My personal theory is that its "roughly" its 1/24 since that's "roughly" what the crew made the other models at... and its "close" to a lot of the theories. Good enough for me.


Peace,
Jedi Dade

 

I agree they were shooting for a "roughly" 1:24 scale, but the numbers suggest it's closer to 1:21 scale... but that is alright. Back when they were building it all they really wanted was for it to look cool, and that's exactly what they got! If you were to put 1/24th scale figurines in the cockpit they would look a bit small but would probably pass on film!

 

So, in summary: take a big swig from the creativity jug and go with makes you happy (or if doing a commission, that which makes the customer happy!)

BTW, I thought someone here had done a full-on analysis of the 5 footer and created the base form in 3D? Dang, where is that thread?
R/ Robert

 

Is this the one your talking about ?
http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=230674

 

& theres Maruska,....http://www.therpf.com/f11/millenium-falcon-parts-3d-printing-168520/

falcon.maruskadesign.com

& Andre......(vfxsup64)........#447,......this image has the dimensions you could be looking for

attachment.php

J

 

Right member, but he probably meant his other thread http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=227052

 

Steve Starkiller has focussed mainly on the full-sized filming prop,....not the filming miniatures,....(5 footer & 32").....although he has created the nice 5 footer Ep 7 render that Vacformedhero linked to

J

 

Here's my take. Studio Scale is not a " Scale" . Even though "scale" is in the phrase. "Dog" is in the phrase hot dog, but there's no dog in it, LOL. Studio scale is the size of the actual filming miniature, period. It may work out to be a particular scale, but that would be just be blind luck. Maybe in the case of the fighters in Star Wars or other films, they used a pilot figure of a particular scale. Then maybe you could say it was the same scale. When someone builds a duplicate of a studio scale model, they want to build it the exact size, as much as possible, as the SS Model. With similar techniques and the exact kit parts. It doesn't really matter what " scale " it is, if you get the size right. It's a category error , Imho, to ask what "scale" a particular studio scale model is. When someone asks I say it's studio scale, LOL. Unless there was a real Mel Falcon, the actual size it was supposed to be, then there can't be a " Scale". An F16 has an actual size, so there can be scale models of it. Is there a real Mel Falcon. Even the " full sized" Mel Falcon was under sized. So what scale is the 5 foot falcon, 20 percent of a 75 percent full sized falcon. Too much math for me. I think people should keep Studio Scale separate from actual real world modeling. Unless you just like to play mind games for the sheer fun of it. Some people like to think of theoretical stuff to stretch their cranium. Nothing wrong with that, but unproductive, if you hope to come to an actual consensus. Studio Scale is Studio Scale. The End.

 

Thanks, LS8. That’s good *…strange how it turned out, but good to know. Not to worry about the post. I usually read & write to the boards stupidly late when I am half asleep. My post was more like Luke saying “I care” in response to Leia’s comment, or perhaps “amen, brother!”. Indeed, Brown’s work should be known by all who is interested, and many who do know it are believing converts…like me.

Turns out I did get that Fine Molds Falcon, mainly out of curiosity, and for reference. I doubt I will ever build it, though. I tend to get publications and differing models of the Falcon as I can afford them for the sake of comparison and triangulation. I have discovered there is a little truth in each (sometimes * little), and as long as I have the patience to seek out and extract that truth, then ultimately, it is a plus. So far, the FM Falcon yields a 3D sculpture of the engines’ semi-innards, which is based on sketches in the Lucas archives, another version (other than the MPC Falcon) of the landing legs/feet, and an interpretation of the forward hull boxes. Not sure what to do with them just yet, but at least I have them.

Mark

 

I am very grateful to Markusa for his effort to make the parts of the “5-Footer” available to folks. Even still, these days I have to watch my spending, so I have yet to partake of the bounty.

My hat is off to Andre. He has tools I do not, and the desire to solve the beast. Personally, I do not think he is quite there yet, though with each iteration, he has been getting closer to my numbers. I think he might believe he has solved it at this point and is done, and maybe he has and is…again because I have never been up close and personal with the bird. His total base length is a little longer than mine; I have independent confirmation by others for mine, and his radius of saucer curvature is a little bigger than mine; I also have independent confirmation by others for mine. But he has done more in a shorter amount of time than I ever could. Mind you, I have not thoroughly solved it myself, but I believe I have a large portion of the fundamentals solved. The biggest sticking point for me has been the hull boxes. The underside images I have access to are usually very oblique, or far too close-up with the attending perspective problems to obtain accurate orthos from.

Mark