Jet Pack Star Wars Power of costume exhibit in NYC

[Darth Voorhees]

I thought id start a thread pertaining just to this if anyone wants to share thoughts or askl some of our experts here about the exhibit, and of course the Fett suit displayed there. I know other folks have posted some stuff here and there but thought 1 thread for it would be a great resource in the future.

So I think the exhibit was very good. it was great to see the old TIE pilot and Boushh in person..i love the Boushh suit. Also the TFA pilot as i havent seen that in person previously at C7 like the TFA TK and Snowie. The classic Stormtrooper displays were great as well..although that room is a little trippy with the hanging helmets and mirrors everywhere lol. I will say overall, it was like 60-70% Amidala stuff. But i guess she did have a new dress on every time you turned around so... lol

Ok...Now onto the important part. Fett lol

Now the thing i most wanted to see in person was the jetpack as i feel the correct sizes of things on the pack are hard to determine just from photos. Plus i wanted to see what i can improve on my own sculpt.

I wanted to ask someone here who may be more in the know than I...maybe Raf or Keegan...do we know that the tour Jetpack is a screen used or at the very least derived from one? Because it seems alot of parts on it are smaller, or bigger than i thought. My wife only took 1 picture because the cellphone lesns distorts everything. But from the packs ive seen in person, the sizes seemed off, including my own.

Now for comparison purposes i will only use my packs as a sizing example since i made it and no one can get mad at me pointing out some flaws in my own pack lol.

What i noticed right away is that the thruster balls are way bigger than any ive seen. they look to be either 2.75-3" in diameter. Mine are 2.5" and the ones on display were definitely bigger. But its very hard to tell in a photo. In the 1 photo my wife took, it instantly looked smaller. More like most of the pics ive seen all over the net. Ive seen tons of photos of the pack and always thought the thruster balls were larger than most make them...but in most of the pics ive seen it doesnt actually seem that way. Only the ESB promo shot taken directly from behind does the thruster ball seem fairly larger..almost the width of the fuel tank cap. But after seeing it in person...it is definitely bigger than what i perceived it to be and made me think that that ESB promo shot was a more accurate representation of the sizing. It may be a photo that was taken from a decent distance and zoomed in, as that tended to get rid of alot of distortions. As a matter of a fact, i think the old 2008/2009 MOW ones were actually correct now after seeing this pack in person.

I also noticed the rocket parts seemed smaller in certain proportions as well. When i made my pack i combined Raf's measurements with the WOF templates and tried to get to something accurate using the 2 ...along with.. a "does this look right" kind of thing lol. I noticed the vertical straight part on the bottom half of the rocket, before it tapers outward to the cone shape, is def shorter than mine. That was something i did notice before the exhibit and had planned to fix, but this confirmed my thought for sure. Another thing i noticed, the top part of the lower rocket, where the collar would sit, is very narrow. Definitely more narrow than mine. The top part of the rocket also needs to be a little smaller on my kit.

The pack also appeared to be a little shorter from top to bottom than mine. I think the width of my pack is good, but at one point i was making it 1/2"-3/4" shorter based on Raf's measurements. I had actually taken that first "master" cast and cut it in half from left to right...removed about 1/2" and put it back together....but i thought it looked funny ...so i ended up putting the strip back in. Now im thinking maybe i should take it out again for the next version.

Im going to go back with a tape measure and try an get some pics. The pack is pretty close to the glass so even if the photo gets slightly size distorted the numbers should be fairly close. I may try and bring casts of my rocket parts and thruster in my pockets for comparison..but i dunno if i can sneek them in but i'll try lol the exhibit is there until Septemeber..so i'll try to hit it up once it gets warmer out again, maybe in the spring.

I did notice the helmet was the PrePro3..which was a bummer...i would have liked to see the actual ESB hero..but oh well.

If anyof you experts would like to chime in on anything please do...and fo course anyone who wants to post up their thoughts on the exhibit or just Fett in the exhibit, also feel free!

 

[Hunter930]

Wow thanks for starting this thread Lou, i have always found these exhibits fascinating , we had one come down here in Melbourne many years ago, still a highlight in my mind.

 

[Lynn TXP 0369]

I'd like to see some Fett pics from this exhibit.
Lynn

 

[Matty Matt]

I'd like to see any pics as well. I've been thinking about trying to make it out to this exhibit before it's gone.

 

[Darth Voorhees]

We didnt get many cuz the lighting was awful...we also went with a bunch of people before our Garrison trooper appreciation dinner so i couldnt stay in one place for too long without losing the group lol. Im going to hit up the exhibit again in April and meet Major/Rob there and we will be able to really check out the Fett they have there and discuss that jetpack im so interested in lol.

Ill see if i can snag the few pics we got from my wife's phone. I think Keegan had posted pics in another thread...i'll see if i can find them, and if he doesnt mind me reposting them here.

 

[Fett 4 Real]

http://www.thedentedhelmet.com/gallery/g569-boba-fett-return-of-the-jedi-jetpack.html

You can CLEARLY see next to a ruler FFS the size of the thrusters. This isn't much of a stretch that theyre about 3"

Look here for example

 

[Gregory]

Probably more important is relative sizes. Meaning, the thruster ball is almost as big around as the "tanks". And, the large end of the cone is bigger than the ball, that sort of thing.

 

[Darth Voorhees]

http://www.thedentedhelmet.com/gallery/g569-boba-fett-return-of-the-jedi-jetpack.html

You can CLEARLY see next to a ruler FFS the size of the thrusters. This isn't much of a stretch that theyre about 3"

Look here for example

View attachment 95198

yes this is true but i dont remember where i heard that the old MOW ones were "way to big" and everyone made them smaller after that. As Raf's chart with measurements puts them at about 2" Now i remember Raf saying some of the measurements may be off because he based them all off of the stabilizer because it was a known found part that we know the size of. I based alot of my measurements from those.

I personally ALWAYS thought the thruster ball was around 3" diameter but every bit of info i could find contradicted that. i have those photos but in some of the shots the ruler isnt really in an idea place to get a good measurement. Somehow i overlooked what you did right there. I was focused too much on the forward facing shots probably.

But looking at photos in general it doesnt look that big. its all perspective and lens distortion etc etc. This is the first time ive seen the real pack in person...aside from in 1997 when i wasnt into this stuff and i didnt look at anything in detail like i do now.

So my thought that the old 09 MOW thrusters were the correct size at 3" diameter was correct. Why the heck did everyone all of a sudden think they were smaller? i was baffled by that and then thought maybe i was wrong since SO many folks seems the think it was correct. Well at any rate, there ya go.

Still curious about the rocket parts though. they did seem a bit smaller than what i have

 

[Matty Matt]

Interesting. So he had bigger balls than we thought.

 

[RafalFett]

The thruster balls have around 2.5 inch (or 61-63mm) diameter:



Also note that the uler is much lower than the thruster ball, so the 2.5 inch might be smaller. On my 3D model the thruster ball has a 61mm diameter or 2.4 inch.

 

[Darth Voorhees]

This is what i had thought Raf.....and 99.5% of the time i think you are correct, but the ones i made for my pack, are 2.5" and the ones on the pack at the exhibit were definitely bigger. i spent too much time with that thruster in front of me to know that what i saw in the exhibit was bigger than the 2.5" thruster i made.

Also it looked like the thruster ball was about the same diameter as the fuel tank tops which im pretty sure are 3" and i think keegan had also agreed with this size for the fuel tank top diameter.

Im gonna try and get one of mine in there in April when i go back and try and take a pic of them next to each other. hopefully it'll work, since its behind glass. the pack is pretty close to the glass though so hopefully at the very least we'd be able to see that the thruster on that exhibit pack is bigger than my 2.5" diameter one.

I really am 100% positive they are bigger than 2.5", alot of the time im unsure, but im sure about this one lol. They appear to be 2.75-3" to me. I recently had an old set of MOWs here (2009 kit) for a build and the ones on the pack i just saw at the exhibit looked like they were in line with MOWs 09 thrusters. I think people thought his thrusters were too big because his pack is actully on the smaller side when it comes to the overall width and diameter of the fuel tanks.

 

[Fett 4 Real]

Also note that the uler is much lower than the thruster ball, so the 2.5 inch might be smaller. On my 3D model the thruster ball has a 61mm diameter or 2.4 inch.

I agree with this throwing the perspective off...I think theyre closer to 2.75" and if they were a full sphere theyd be about 3" like Lou is saying but since the sides/bottom are flattened it throws off your measurement

Im fairly certain just look at it this way.....

 

[01Hawk]

Pretty sure the ones on the new MOW pack are only 2". Hopefully no one calls me out on my small balls.

 

[toolguy301]

Been doing some checking as well on this & I agree with what Raf came up with in that top view but if you go by the side view the arc on the back side of the ball & making a true circle it is coming out to be 2.9" for the ball diameter with the distance from the narrow portion of the cone to the top of the ball at 2.700". The problem with the photos is that there seems to be some lens & perspective/depth distortion that skews things. The areas of the attachment & where the cone meets the ball give the illusion of it as an oval in that top view giving it a squashed look. I have the tank caps at 2.9". Here is a photo of the side view that gives merit to the larger ball diameter.

But with this the bottom of the cone gets much larger as well which doesn't show well in that top view. By going with the side view it is checking 3.46" at the large end of the cone.

Was this something you noticed as well Lou? Would really like to see some comparison. The problem is the perspective may be off due to depth, unless they were right next to each other.

 

[Fett 4 Real]

Which I already said and did...move that ruler even with the ball and itll be at 3" perspective throws off the measurement its at least 6" away from the ball

 

[Darth Voorhees]

Been doing some checking as well on this & I agree with what Raf came up with in that top view but if you go by the side view the arc on the back side of the ball & making a true circle it is coming out to be 2.9" for the ball diameter with the distance from the narrow portion of the cone to the top of the ball at 2.700". The problem with the photos is that there seems to be some lens & perspective/depth distortion that skews things. The areas of the attachment & where the cone meets the ball give the illusion of it as an oval in that top view giving it a squashed look. I have the tank caps at 2.9". Here is a photo of the side view that gives merit to the larger ball diameter.

But with this the bottom of the cone gets much larger as well which doesn't show well in that top view. By going with the side view it is checking 3.46" at the large end of the cone.

Was this something you noticed as well Lou? Would really like to see some comparison. The problem is the perspective may be off due to depth, unless they were right next to each other.

Yea 2.9 is almost 3" and i tend to agree with that. Seeing it in person really makes a huge difference, because it does eliminate the lens distortion completely and the perspective thing to almost none. What im basing my thought on is that i know the ones i made fro my pack are 2.5" and when i saw the pack at the exhibit the thruster balls were undoubtedly bigger. They reminded me of my old MOW 2009 ones. Now i think when folks said that the MOW thrusters werte too big ..it was in comparison tom the pack, as his pack is of a smaller size and it would make the ball thrusters seem larger. I personally think he had em right back in 09.

Hard to tell with the cone as i wasnt looking at it that much. I did notice the cone was a touch shorter than mine. When i redo the thrusters ill shorten them from the top part of the cone because it seemed to be a touch wider at the connecting area. On my Thrusters the widest /lowest part of the cone is 3" . BUT i did that size basing it off the size of the ball, which mine are 2.5".... and from that one promo ESB shot where i think you can actually tell the ball is bigger that we seem to think. I used that photo to gauge the size between the ball and widest point of the thruster. So i made it a half inch wider just going by eye. Now if the ball is in fact close to 3" then the 3.46" width of the bottom of the cone would seem correct to me as well.

All that said depth perseption plays a big part in the photos as well. Even trying to base the thruster ball size off of the stabilizer..the thruster ball sits further back than the stabilizer which would make it seem smaller trying to check a measurement on a flat photo. So again, it supports the thought the ball is bigger than the measurement we'd get.

Here is the cropped part of the promo pic i thought showed the size the best:

here is the main part of the photo:

here is another shot:

All this said..we are all going by photographs that we all agree can distort , between lens distortion, depth perception, and distance from the subject. I wish some of you were close enough to come to the exhibit with me when i try and sneek in one of my casts so you can see how much bigger it is on that exhibit pack lol. Im going to try and take a pic, but like mAtty Matt said there will likely still be some depth perception going on...but being it it very close to the glass im hoping it will be a pretty decent representation of the size difference

 

[RafalFett]

I will let the image to talk:

 

[RafalFett]

Been doing some checking as well on this & I agree with what Raf came up with in that top view but if you go by the side view the arc on the back side of the ball & making a true circle it is coming out to be 2.9" for the ball diameter with the distance from the narrow portion of the cone to the top of the ball at 2.700". The problem with the photos is that there seems to be some lens & perspective/depth distortion that skews things. The areas of the attachment & where the cone meets the ball give the illusion of it as an oval in that top view giving it a squashed look. I have the tank caps at 2.9". Here is a photo of the side view that gives merit to the larger ball diameter.

But with this the bottom of the cone gets much larger as well which doesn't show well in that top view. By going with the side view it is checking 3.46" at the large end of the cone.

Was this something you noticed as well Lou? Would really like to see some comparison. The problem is the perspective may be off due to depth, unless they were right next to each other.

I don't recommend the use of that image with the measurement tape as a guide for the thruster, as the tape sits on the rocket base which is further back than the thruster. This image shows the difference in shape when viewed from another angle:

 

[Darth Voorhees]

double post

 

[Darth Voorhees]

I agree Raf, that tape measure is way further back than where the thruster is.

See those measurements are saying its 2.5"..which is what i made mine, and why. The one image on the upper left, you photoshopped the ruler on, which leaves room for interpretation. i could do the same thing and make it appear 3", or 2".

see:

You are showing there the cone bottom at 3" and the ball at 2.5", which is exactly what i have on my kit, which again compared to what i saw in person, is smaller than it actually is. But it does show the proportioning is correct. So Toolguys measurements seem closer to me to what they should be going by what i saw in person at the exhibit.

There is no way to get the size of the measuring tape that close in scale with the actual thruster..there are to many variables..it will always be slightly off. And since we are talking about a small amount of size over a sphere its very hard to get right. Even if we assume your rule size is correct in relation to the thruster, i can tell the difference between the size of a orange and the size of a grapefruit just by looking at it, and what i was looking at was bigger then my current thruster size.

So going by that.. i am telling you, the ones on the pack in the exhibit are bigger than 2.5". Now i suppose there is a possibility they made more than one set..why id have no idea, ..or maybe the ones on the exhibit are not the originals, but again mine are 2.5" i have held them in my hands and looked at them more than anyone should findle thrusters lol...while i was making them...and the ones on the display are clearly larger than mine.