great tips. thank you.
ANH Hero DL-44 Discussion - Three ANH Greeblies Found
- Thread starter deadbolt
- Start date
I'm trying to wrap up my Denix conversion and the one thing I keep getting really stuck on is the front sight/antenna greeblie setup. I've re-read all of the research a zillion times and as you well know it's just plain inconclusive. The general consensus seems to be a t-track piece with a bevel at the back and one or two tomtit push rods. Makes sense.
So I'm staring at the Chronicles scans again, blurring and squinting trying to decipher what's really there. Despite all the extensive research (go @kpax!) I don't think we have it sorted.
This hit me, and I don't think it looks right from the side, but from the top it really seems to match. What if the bevel on the t-track is at the FRONT, not the back? Look at the cropped scan below - I can only explain the curvature on the front section by it sloping DOWN toward the business end, which I noticed after I started filing down my track. The section by the rear of the push rod looks straight and thin, like the top of the t-track. Again, looking at it from the side I don't see this at all, that view is totally screwy and possibly interfered with by a bad cutout for the pic in the book. Here's what I mean, bevel outlined hastily in yellow. Am I crazed or can anyone else see this?
For grins I taped my t-track on "backwards" with a pushrod to see how it looks. Pretty close! (keeping in mind that the bevel angle here is pretty arbitrary and probably not correct).
Of course the side view is a mess. I guess I don't really think this is what was there, but it's the only way I've been able to match the top view, even taking into account the crooked flash hider and off-center sight.
Sorry to re-open old wounds... Sigh...just one decent pic of the original part is all we need! It's our lot in life to suffer...
So I'm staring at the Chronicles scans again, blurring and squinting trying to decipher what's really there. Despite all the extensive research (go @kpax!) I don't think we have it sorted.
This hit me, and I don't think it looks right from the side, but from the top it really seems to match. What if the bevel on the t-track is at the FRONT, not the back? Look at the cropped scan below - I can only explain the curvature on the front section by it sloping DOWN toward the business end, which I noticed after I started filing down my track. The section by the rear of the push rod looks straight and thin, like the top of the t-track. Again, looking at it from the side I don't see this at all, that view is totally screwy and possibly interfered with by a bad cutout for the pic in the book. Here's what I mean, bevel outlined hastily in yellow. Am I crazed or can anyone else see this?
For grins I taped my t-track on "backwards" with a pushrod to see how it looks. Pretty close! (keeping in mind that the bevel angle here is pretty arbitrary and probably not correct).
Of course the side view is a mess. I guess I don't really think this is what was there, but it's the only way I've been able to match the top view, even taking into account the crooked flash hider and off-center sight.
Sorry to re-open old wounds... Sigh...just one decent pic of the original part is all we need! It's our lot in life to suffer...
H0llyw00d
Sr Member
I think that angled section is just broken plastic T-track. The hero was a live-fire beast and saw a lot of holster wear. The plastic T-track and piston greeblies didn't stand a chance. I personally believe the prop originally had 2 full-length piston greeblies but one didn't even make it to production as evidenced by this pre-production image (image is Scottjua's 
).:
).:
Last edited:
mine...
H0llyw00d
Sr Member
Oops.. can I use it Scott?
Kpax - Yours is beautiful of course, my main inspiration. Your interpretation of the sight certainly looks the part, but my gut tells me the modifications are too complex for what they would have built, and we would have seen on screen if they had actually shown it!
Do you believe that the bottom edge of the t-track in my diagram is actually just glue? Looks so straight and nicely parallel to the barrel, I assume that to be the edge of the track. If that's the case I can't see how the rear edge of the track (blade) could be beveled, as it is further to the right in the photo than the "track edge". Perspective would indicate that this is higher than the base, not flush or it would end at the same point on the right side.
Anyway, don't know what I think at this point. I haven't handled any vintage tomtit engine parts, but if they're anything like modern counterparts they wouldn't break easily, I'd imagine the (presumably epoxy) would loose its bond before the t-track snapped, unless it was pretty brittle.
I don't know what I think at this point. I'm trying to find ways to reconcile what I think I see as a beveled edge in the top pic with the side view. I know you guys hashed this out years ago so I'll shut up if I'm just being an annoying noob.
Your interpretation of the sight certainly looks the part, but my gut tells me the modifications are too complex for what they would have built, and we would have seen on screen if they had actually shown it! Do you believe that the bottom edge of the t-track in my diagram is actually just glue? Looks so straight and nicely parallel to the barrel, I assume that to be the edge of the track. If that's the case I can't see how the rear edge of the track (blade) could be beveled, as it is further to the right in the photo than the "track edge". Perspective would indicate that this is higher than the base, not flush or it would end at the same point on the right side.
Anyway, don't know what I think at this point. I haven't handled any vintage tomtit engine parts, but if they're anything like modern counterparts they wouldn't break easily, I'd imagine the (presumably epoxy) would loose its bond before the t-track snapped, unless it was pretty brittle.
I don't know what I think at this point. I'm trying to find ways to reconcile what I think I see as a beveled edge in the top pic with the side view. I know you guys hashed this out years ago so I'll shut up if I'm just being an annoying noob.
kpax
Sr Member
This is what it looks like. I made mine removable (with a magnate) so there is a slight edge that would be glue.
This is the "final" version as on the last know images of the HERO.
The Ford image shows the sight with the rod still on the right antenna head.
I made a full "as original pristine" version with both rods and heads as well as seen in the bottom images.
This is the "final" version as on the last know images of the HERO.
The Ford image shows the sight with the rod still on the right antenna head.
I made a full "as original pristine" version with both rods and heads as well as seen in the bottom images.
kpax
Sr Member
I believe that they made originally made the sight with full length antenna/push-rods and a simple ramp blade between the two antenna.
My comparative images show that the antenna could not have been placed on top of the track because they would sit too high and also the Merrson version show the antenna sitting directly on the barrel.
I assume they glued the ramp and antenna on the barrel and the first test fire broke the left antenna off completely and most of the right rod leaving mostly glue and the right antenna head. Look at Fords face...he knows he broke it !
The glue residue retains the shape of the antenna and rod which is why the clean shapes are seen like a mold, making it look like a structure.
My comparative images show that the antenna could not have been placed on top of the track because they would sit too high and also the Merrson version show the antenna sitting directly on the barrel.
I assume they glued the ramp and antenna on the barrel and the first test fire broke the left antenna off completely and most of the right rod leaving mostly glue and the right antenna head. Look at Fords face...he knows he broke it !
The glue residue retains the shape of the antenna and rod which is why the clean shapes are seen like a mold, making it look like a structure.
Kpax - Yours is beautiful of course, my main inspiration.
Do you believe that the bottom edge of the t-track in my diagram is actually just glue? Looks so straight and nicely parallel to the barrel, I assume that to be the edge of the track. If that's the case I can't see how the rear edge of the track (blade) could be beveled, as it is further to the right in the photo than the "track edge". Perspective would indicate that this is higher than the base, not flush or it would end at the same point on the right side.
Anyway, don't know what I think at this point. I haven't handled any vintage tomtit engine parts, but if they're anything like modern counterparts they wouldn't break easily, I'd imagine the (presumably epoxy) would loose its bond before the t-track snapped, unless it was pretty brittle.
I don't know what I think at this point. I'm trying to find ways to reconcile what I think I see as a beveled edge in the top pic with the side view. I know you guys hashed this out years ago so I'll shut up if I'm just being an annoying noob.
kpax
Sr Member
.That is what I did. I used the ridge and cut away the flat base sides for the FULL "as made" version...but for the screen versions of the HERO images I believe the track ridge was also missing and only left glue residue in the same shape of the base and under antenna head. The glue hardened between the antenna heads and ridge leaving a glue shape that follows the shapes of the antenna and ridge leaving a negative impression.
My TOP view images show the exact same shadows and edges as the HERO which convinces me that this is the way it must have been.
My TOP view images show the exact same shadows and edges as the HERO which convinces me that this is the way it must have been.
Too true, that is a gorgeous blaster!
So what if the t-track is really just a ridge ("T" edges trimmed off, as is believed was done on the Mersonn, beveled at the front? Hmm...
Last edited:
Hey! I'm new to the RPF, and I would love to start building a DL-44 - my only experience so far is watching the Tested video where they do the same:$
Does anyone know the difference between the screen-used MGC Mauser C96 and a Denix like the one below? Would these differences be able to be rectified? I understand I might have to wait a while for the next run of parts but I'm happy to wait. Thanks guys!
www.relics.org.uk/mauser-c96-broomhandled-machine-pistol-2
Does anyone know the difference between the screen-used MGC Mauser C96 and a Denix like the one below? Would these differences be able to be rectified? I understand I might have to wait a while for the next run of parts but I'm happy to wait. Thanks guys!
www.relics.org.uk/mauser-c96-broomhandled-machine-pistol-2
Last edited by a moderator:
Lichtbringer
Master Member
Not yet. But i think within some time Fieldmarshall will offer one.
Tk600
New Member
Quick question guys but has the DL44 mystery disk every been identified? Only I was taking an old eumig servomatic apart and the bolt that goes through the leather case into the camera has a small disk with a hole in the centre and 3 equally spaced holes around the disk. I know it's really unlikely that this is the part but it was off a eumig camera case and the camera was used as a base for Luke's macro's! Probably wishful thinking!lol
kpax
Sr Member
If you look at the image below, you can see that there is also "damage" or glue debris above the disk and on the upper rail/receiver. There may have been something glued there as well as the disk area. ( I replicated this "rubed area on my build) The fact that TFA actually placed a "knob" in that area may suggest that someone may know something within Lucasfilm and that there was knob there. There may have been a cable/node similar to the MerrSonn blaster glued to the rail. Purely conjecture but possible?
Similar threads
