Vader MPP lightsabers details and specifications

Hate to necro this, but I'm in the process of a Vader ESB build using a new Romans replica.

This is regarding the grip length and therefore the placement of the clamp along the shaft of the hilt.

I've been using Roy's guide as a source of accuracy, but I'm noticing sort of an inconsistency. I purchased a set of separate ESB grips for a Korbanth MPP 2.0 and noticed that they are a good bit longer than the recommended 104mm for ESB grips. They're around 116mm, so with that; I searched for images of completed Korbanth MPP 2.0's in ESB config and it indeed shows these longer grips and thus the space between the clamp and the bulb release piece is a lot smaller than on Roy's blueprint.

I figured it was just an inaccuracy unique to the MPP 2.0 (which is no surprise), which isn't a big deal I can just trim 12mm off the grips and I'll be good to go (wanted to use the MPP 2.0's due to the ease of the double sided tape as well as the compatibility with the Graflex bank 3d printed template guide) However, to make sure that it is indeed inaccurate, I searched for images of the MR elite/LE ESB Vader replica and the spacing and sizing is similar to that of the 2.0's. The grips on the MR LE do not look at all like 104mm as seen on Roy's blueprint, they look longer. As well, the gap between the clamp and bulb release piece is the same shortened amount as seen on completed MPP 2.0's in ESB config.

Here's some photos to show my point:

MPP 2.0 completed in ESB config:
https://goo.gl/images/bKNi1T

MR LE Darth Vader Lightsaber... same long grips:
https://goo.gl/images/HdO3vg

Wannawanga blueprint to show the disparity:
https://goo.gl/images/3zG8UV

I've looked around and have only seen a handful of finished hilts that have the same grip length and dimensions as referenced in Roy's guide, and most of them are handbuilt props using real MPP's.

Is this disparity in grip length and therefore clamp placement (since the clamp is always going to be right on top of the grips in an ESB config) an inaccuracy on the part of the MPP 2.0 AS WELL as the MR LE? Is 104mm the true measurement toward accuracy for the prop itself?

Just want to make sure before I trim these grips to 104mm.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion wanna wanga's measurement is too short for ESB and rotj.

Do a search for Gino's specs. I personally like those more.
 
Wasn't aware there were other individuals who made reference data for sizing and proportions. I may do that, since it seems that in general, most iterations of the Vader ESB hilt use these longer grips than what is seen in Roy's blueprint.

If Roy himself can chime in, I'd appreciate it.
 
Also, good news for those of us that are interested in electronics for replica MPP's.

I made a post on TGS' FB page asking if they'd bring back their MPP blade holder since there are now a couple of MPP replicas available. TGS proceeded to PM me on FB and ask if I'd send them my Roman's MPP so that they can use it as a basis to design a new blade holder. They just want to make sure its diameter and proportions match that of an original flash as well as other replicas (pretty sure it does). They will make it available in 7/8" and 1" variations.

Once I get these grips put onto my Roman's replica, I'll be sending it over to them so hopefully soon we will have a blade adapter!

In a market where we can have dead-on accurate Graflex and Obi-Wan hilts with electronics, I don't see why would should have to settle for the inaccurate MPP 2.0 to have a working Vader saber.
 
I eyeballed the grips on the Prop Store saber (the ESB and ROTJ hero) and was surprised to see the clamp was a bit higher than halfway. i always thought the grips were like super long (like 5 inches or something) but that may have been an old replica
 
Also, good news for those of us that are interested in electronics for replica MPP's.

I made a post on TGS' FB page asking if they'd bring back their MPP blade holder since there are now a couple of MPP replicas available. TGS proceeded to PM me on FB and ask if I'd send them my Roman's MPP so that they can use it as a basis to design a new blade holder. They just want to make sure its diameter and proportions match that of an original flash as well as other replicas (pretty sure it does). They will make it available in 7/8" and 1" variations.

Once I get these grips put onto my Roman's replica, I'll be sending it over to them so hopefully soon we will have a blade adapter!

In a market where we can have dead-on accurate Graflex and Obi-Wan hilts with electronics, I don't see why would should have to settle for the inaccurate MPP 2.0 to have a working Vader saber.


This is excellent news and many thanks for sharing! :) I have a Romans MPP on the way and would like to to an install one day with 7/8" blade. i'm still tempted to keep my 2.0 for now which is all installed and something I don't mind thrashing about with the little one when he is old enough. Does anyone know the best way to be able to get the pommel off when grips are installed, is it just a case of making sure the sticky doesn't go all the way to the end of the grips?

P.S. How are folks finding the Romans MPP accuracy wise, are they more or less accurate than Park's old version 1 flash? I understand Parks used to make the most accurate replica before the 2.0. I think the 2.0 is great for novices getting started and i love mine, also good for duelling and not worrying about it getting damaged. Good to have some accurate versions on the market though :)
 
P.S. How are folks finding the Romans MPP accuracy wise, are they more or less accurate than Park's old version 1 flash? I understand Parks used to make the most accurate replica before the 2.0. I think the 2.0 is great for novices getting started and i love mine, also good for duelling and not worrying about it getting damaged. Good to have some accurate versions on the market though :)

I find the Romans to be HIGHLY accurate/ high quality. I mean, they're heavier, so thats not exactly the same I guess - real mpps don't have a metal lug inside :D

the letters/sockets are higher quality (the romans ones are sharper and have color) and the shrouds are more textured. The endcap of Romans has the threading in the black socket and the little rings around it. the parks is just plain with a cylindrical recess.

the only thing with Roman's are the silver bars, which are trapezoidal. They're beautiful though, and I'm leaving mine as-is, because of the number of variations of real MPPs. if the prop-guys found a flash like that, they'd leave it as is.
 
I find the Romans to be HIGHLY accurate/ high quality. I mean, they're heavier, so thats not exactly the same I guess - real mpps don't have a metal lug inside :D

the letters/sockets are higher quality (the romans ones are sharper and have color) and the shrouds are more textured. The endcap of Romans has the threading in the black socket and the little rings around it. the parks is just plain with a cylindrical recess.

the only thing with Roman's are the silver bars, which are trapezoidal. They're beautiful though, and I'm leaving mine as-is, because of the number of variations of real MPPs. if the prop-guys found a flash like that, they'd leave it as is.

This is good to read, thank you for the info:)

I knew Romans would make an accurate one. Excuse my ignorance but what is the metal lug that makes it heavier please? When a blade holder is available do you think it will be easy to take it apart to install electronics?

Thanks again
 
Hey guys, so teecrooz message just made me curious, so I took the esb prop picture seen from the side in photoshop, rotated it a few tenth of degress to have it perfectly straight. put it at the right scale (with 3.75mm tube diameter and 4.85mm clamp length) with that I get a 106,5mm short grips and 109mm long for the bubble lined up grip.

here is the picture put to scale that I used:
esb_darth_vader_hero_lightsaber_4.jpg

I guess this is exactly in between Roy and Gino measurements ;)
Now I also remeasured from the bottom to the first S hole and I get 19.5cm, in photoshop I get 19,7 with my scale. If I put that back to 19.5, I get 106mm for the short and 108mm for the long one which is still close.
I hope this can help
 
Hey guys, so teecrooz message just made me curious, so I took the esb prop picture seen from the side in photoshop, rotated it a few tenth of degress to have it perfectly straight. put it at the right scale (with 3.75mm tube diameter and 4.85mm clamp length) with that I get a 106,5mm short grips and 109mm long for the bubble lined up grip.

I guess this is exactly in between Roy and Gino measurements ;)
Now I also remeasured from the bottom to the first S hole and I get 19.5cm, in photoshop I get 19,7 with my scale. If I put that back to 19.5, I get 106mm for the short and 108mm for the long one which is still close.
I hope this can help

Hi eethan,
This is pretty close, but not close enough; this way you don't take the perspective distortion into consideration.
I did a perspective match with my CAD model of the MPP with the older images when the prop was still hanging in the museum. The view is also pretty much a side view and I came up with the length of the tracks as shown in my DV ESB blueprint.

DV-MPP-perspective-matching.jpg

Blueprint-DV-ESB.jpg

I could try to do the same thing but with these newer images. I'll try to make some time for that soon.
 
thanks for your answer Roy, i really don't want to launch a debate but I think your grips are just a tiny bit too short on both ends in your CAD, in the picture we can see they really touch the clamp and in your CAD overlay, we can see the corners of the real grip on the bottom left that is longer than your model. also, it seems that totally randomly on that picture, the most visible grip on the right is a good milimeter shorter than the others for some reason. All in all, I think my average might be closer ;)
 
Not to start a debate, (please don't take this any other way) Roy's blueprint vrs the photo above looks like the grips are lined up differently. The picture above looks to show the grips lining up with the clamp card. Roy's print shows different. Am I seeing this wrong?
 
Hi eethan,
This is pretty close, but not close enough; this way you don't take the perspective distortion into consideration.
I did a perspective match with my CAD model of the MPP with the older images when the prop was still hanging in the museum. The view is also pretty much a side view and I came up with the length of the tracks as shown in my DV ESB blueprint.

View attachment 822910

View attachment 822911

I could try to do the same thing but with these newer images. I'll try to make some time for that soon.
Roy, question for you. This scaled drawing looks like the grips run into the sides of the clamp card. In your blueprints, the track looks to line up with only one in the center. Am I seeing this correctly?
 
Roy, question for you. This scaled drawing looks like the grips run into the sides of the clamp card. In your blueprints, the track looks to line up with only one in the center. Am I seeing this correctly?

No, it's lining up with the clamp in the center. Here's a picture that shows how much centered it really is :

2260690be61c8486d4aeeef1ca9a8864.jpg


Roy
 
Boy to make the channel inside the bubble strip like that is going to be challenging..

Afraid sanding it with a file with distort view through the bubbles..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

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