Revell AG. Millenium Falcon vs. MPC/ERTL?

[mightymax]

Hi Folks,

I recently have seen the Revell AG. Falcon at Hobby Lobby for 54.00. Since I have at least 6 MPC/ERTL Falcons (including the original illuminated release) I ask. Is the Revell kit worth considering? One of the biggest gripes about the accuracy of the old MPC kit was the height of the sidewalls. I have looked at the boxtop photo of the actual Revell kit and I gotta say I am not impressed! The thing looks at least as fat (maybe even more to me) as the old MPC kit. Is this true or is it just a photographic illusion and the kit is actually leaps and bounds better than the MPC kit?

Max Bryant

[ikar]

I thought that it was just a re-issue of the MPC kit. I haven't heard any different.

[Jay Chladek]

Nope, the Revell kit is an all new tool. It is not a warmed over MPC kit. I recently did a side by side by side comparison of the FineMolds, MPC and Revell kits and posted a review of the three over at Starship Modeler. Right now I am just about done with a builtup of the FineMolds kit and I used a Hobby Lobby coupon a couple weeks ago to get the Revell offering. Plus I have four MPC/AMT Falcons in my stash with one partly built. Here is a repost below (with some revisions for new stuff I found since the original posting):

MPC/AMT kit: The old one of the bunch. It may be dated with some soft details, but what you get as a core kit is good IMHO for doing a three geared Falcon from ANH. With the one I have, I've got the upper and lower hulls built up with the insert pieces installed and they look okay. Building it as a gear up Falcon was a bit tough since the open bay pieces needed some backing with strip styrene to get them to sit level with the rest of the bottom and the hinge opening areas also needed to be built up with two part epoxy putty to fill and sand to the correct profile. That didn't take long at all though. The sidewalls are indeed a tick too high, but it is possible to shave them down, or you can plunk some cash down on the Blue Moon Falcon Upgrade set(s) from the Starship Modeler store to get the proper looking sidewalls. I have the sidewall set and I consider it money well spent. The upgrade set also has a nice engine deck which looks way better then anything I could have come up with (assuming I wanted to match the detailing seen in the special edtion versions of the film as the studio models had no grill detailing back there).

That being said, if you wanted to get the MPC kit and build it OOB with the stock sidewalls, a good paintjob and the all important weathering job will certainly make it look like a Falcon. Shorter sidewalls will make it look better though and so will some added greeblies to detail it up. Looking at the rear deck, some things will make you chuckle, such as the grill bits from R2-D2 sitting there. At least with the deck area being somewhat spartan in detailing, adding details to it won't be tough since you don't have to remove much if you want to add stuff in its place.

The cockpit does need the most help IMHO as you only get two seats, Han and Chewie and no instrument panel at all. They just sit there in the pit with no controls to fly the ship with. Now concerning the cutaway, it is a good model and it is essentially the same kit with a retooled roof and the open interior section. Only problem with it is that if you decide to shorten the sidewalls, you will have to do similar work to the interior bits and that could be a bit more of a challenge.

FineMolds kit: Well, put simply it is the king of the Falcons for good reason. I recently got done putting all those tiny bits on the back deck of the thing and it took probably about 10 hours total. I didn't rush it, working as meticulously as possible, checking my references to see if the instructions jived as some things had me scratching my head a little. And I also wanted to make sure the glue bonds were good with one set of greeblies before moving onto the next step. When done though, the results spoke for themselves as it truely captured the studio model look. Looking at just how much work Fine Molds crammed into the parts design on this kit, they sure as heck didn't skimp on the detailing and I certainly don't feel like I was ripped off by the money I spent on it.

Size wise, the kit is probably about three of four percent smaller then the MPC kit, but both are pretty dang close in general size and proportions that you probably can't tell the size difference unless you had both sitting side by side with one another. The infamous mandible issue bothers some (they don't tow in towards the bow as the inner edges sit parallel on the FM Falcon), but I consider it trivial in terms of what benefits the kit has. Only drawback I would say is that it can really only be built as the ESB or later version due to the inclusion of the fourth and fifth gear wells. I like it as it adds a husky appearance to the model, but admittedly building it OOB, I can't stick it in a Death Star docking bay 327 diorama either (which I would love to do, contrasting the hunk of junk with clean floors, lighted hangar walls and bright white imperial troopers.)

I would say if you save your money to get an FM Falcon, you won't be disappointed by what you get in it (even if you consider things like the mandibles to be shortcomings). The positives outweigh the negatives IMHO. Of course, if you feel your skills need to develop before tackling this one, then the other two Falcon options are always there and as already said, they are less expensive.

Revell kit: I would place the detailing in this kit as somewhere in the middle of the MPC kit and the FM kit. Size wise, it is about 5% smaller then the FM Falcon, probably making it close to 1/100 scale (somebody scaled it to 1/89 scale, about the same as the MPC Y-Wing). It has a three gear configuration bottom for an ANH Falcon.

Looking at the rear engine deck, it does seem as though Revell started with an MPC kit for inspiration and stuck some additional bits on it to get something with a bit more surface relief. Indeed looking at the overall detailing and comparing it with the FM and MPC kits, it matches the MPC layout of general bits the most while throwing some shapes in there that hint FineMolds more. There are some simplifications in the detailing though. The insert parts on the upper and lower hulls are molded into them, rather then being separate pieces as on the MPC and FM offerings. The gun turret bays also also molded into the upper and lower hull pieces. I would say they succeeded in what they were trying to come up with, although what you get is probably going to be harder to accurize if you are desiring to have a Falcon model that matches a studio model in every detail aspect.

To me, the biggest knock on this kit are the sidewalls as they look to be even taller then MPC's! So if an OOB build is what you are after I would go to the MPC kit instead. As such, shaving the sidewalls down is highly recommended. It doesn't look like this will be as big a challenge though as the sidewall pieces themselves fit onto covered up hull inserts which actually form the structure. So cutting the structure walls down to the right height shouldn't be hard and then have the freedom to either cut down the detail pieces, or scratchbuild some new detailing in the recesses. Indeed one other modeler found that if you cut the sidewalls down to a point where the docking ring inserts on the sides fit over the bays rather then inside them as insert pieces, then you are at about the right height for the cutdown sidewalls. Since this kit is quite a bit smaller then the MPC kit, a resin sidewall set will NOT work with it. The edges of the upper and lower hulls also seem a tad on the thick side, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to sand the edges down to make them sharper as it will make them look better.

As for the pre-painted parts, figure you are going to overpaint them. They are great for a young modeler who wants a toy, but the weathering is too clean. It might not be a bad idea though to snap pictures of the upper and lower hulls and use them as a guide to painting the model in the absence of other references (the bottom especially as even normal references here are sketchy). The cockpit is better then MPC as you do get an instrument panel and slightly better looking flight chairs with rear seats as well. They are rudimentary though. One could go to town in the cockpit if they so desired.

My conclusion is this, for the detailing alone, FM is the best and has the appeal of a fine wine that you spend a lot of money on for the best dinner. So save it for a special occassion and don't gulp it down. Revell's kit is readily available, but it is a little pricey IMHO for what you get and you will be on your own as far as adding stuff to it or accurization work. The Revell kit does have the potential to be built into a really nice looking model though if you are willing to take the time with it.

That leaves the MPC Falcon. It is old, but forms a good basis and there are lots of detail extras out there for it. Lots of SF modelers have cut their teeth on this kit and grown in their skills, regardless of whether the build was OOB based, or had stuff added to it. Also, if you search around you can find most any version of this kit (except the first release) for very affordable prices. Say you buy an MPC Falcon for a common retail price of $30 (easy to get it for less then that if you scour online for one) and a Blue Moon Falcon Upgrade set 1 (the sidewall set) for $60 (that was the price I spent for one at the SSM table at Wonderfest a couple years ago), you would still beat the FM price by anywhere from 1/3rd to 1/2 of it. Add more resin bits though, and the money spent will creep closer to that of an FM Falcon and the workload needed to put all of it into the MPC kit will increase as well.

I will say though that regardless of which choice you make, all have their own unique challenges to do them up right (even with an OOB build). Be it the attention to detail that the FM kit requires, or the resin and/or modification skills needed to achieve the right looks on an MPC or Revell kit. As such, any of the offerings IMHO when you get them built up right will make you proud of the efforts you put fourth to build them and be worthy of the title "Millennium Falcon".

[mightymax]

Thanks Jay for the info.

I had a chance to get a FM Falcon once for 180.00 but passed cause I felt it was too rich for this kid.

I saw the Revell MF at Hobby Lobby and I figure with a coupon I could walk out the door with one for about 35.00.

The box photo had me wondering if even 35.00 was worth it. That photo just makes it look so toylike to me.

I think I will save my money and just build one of the MPC/ERTL releases in the stash. I guess I can't go wrong for the 7.00 each I paid for these back in the Toy Liquidators heydays! I will keep the illuminated first release for the collection!

Anyway I have an issue of Sci-Fi and Fantasy models and a guy details how he made the MPC Falcon more accurate. He stated he cut the sidewalls down by almost half! Then you are faced with rebuilding the cockpit and tunnel cause I don't believe they would remain round if you cut down the sides by any amount. He used PVC plumbing pipe if I remember correctly.

Cheers,

Max Bryant

[Jay Chladek]

Anyway I have an issue of Sci-Fi and Fantasy models and a guy details how he made the MPC Falcon more accurate. He stated he cut the sidewalls down by almost half! Then you are faced with rebuilding the cockpit and tunnel cause I don't believe they would remain round if you cut down the sides by any amount. He used PVC plumbing pipe if I remember correctly.

Cheers,

Max Bryant

I've got that issue as well. Going with a the resin sidewall set available at the Starship Modeler Store is also another option (made by Blue Moon). I have it and the detailing on the new cut down sidewalls looks so much better then the stock ones. Plus you get a little bit of extra detailing goodies for the rear end as well.

I've got three MPC Falcons in my stash. One is going to be done with that sidewall set, but I am not doing it as Han Solo's Falcon. Instead I am doing it up in a blue trimmed paintjob seen on a YT-1300 in Revenge of the Sith (supposedly it is the Falcon long before Lando or Han owned it). I like the color scheme on it and I figure after I do my FM kit up as the Falcon, I might as well get creative with the leftovers. As for the other two Falcons, one might end up as a different Corellian freighter design.

[Andre]

I might as well get creative with the leftovers.

How about a YT-1760 or YT-2000? ;-)

Cheers,

Andre

Edited July 9, 2008 by Andre

[Boxster]

They used the Erlt Falcon on Ep3, supposed to be in one of the shots but I sure didn't see none! Its even included in the Making Of ROTS book and its got one helluva sweet colour scheme.

So, does this means that the Erlt Falcon is now and officially accurate model? It may not be the same as the Falcon but could be one of the variants.

B

[Jay Chladek]

The YT-1760 is actually somewhat close to what I was considering in terms of its cockpit pod mount and engine fit. As for the 2000 (the Otana), I have toyed with that as well, but the best way to do one of those is build the body from the ground up and greeblie it. WHERE did you find that YT-1760 design Andre? The more I look at it, the more I like it (and it looks very doable)!

As for the ROTS ship (I have the book, hence my plan to do one). It briefly appears with its tail to the camera (and it is tiny) in the docking bay sequence before Anikan goes to see the Chancellor at an opera. It appears they just did a repaint of the digital Falcon for that rather then using a physical model. The illustrations in the book indeed look to be based on an Ertl kit, but it appears to be more of a design study drawing rather then a picture of a physical model. As for an MPC model being "canon" or not, depends on whom you talk to (call it a YT-1300B perhaps, capable of carrying a tick more cargo due to its slightly taller size?). But since the image in ROTS seemed to be an alteration of the digital Falcon ILM first came up wit for the Special Edition movies, it would more then likely have the short sidewalls on it as well.

Edited July 10, 2008 by Jay Chladek

[Andre]

WHERE did you find that YT-1760 design Andre? The more I look at it, the more I like it (and it looks very doable)!

I simply did a Google picture search for "Corellian freighter". :-)

Cheers,

Andre

[Boxster]

The YT-1760 is actually somewhat close to what I was considering in terms of its cockpit pod mount and engine fit. As for the 2000 (the Otana), I have toyed with that as well, but the best way to do one of those is build the body from the ground up and greeblie it. WHERE did you find that YT-1760 design Andre? The more I look at it, the more I like it (and it looks very doable)!

As for the ROTS ship (I have the book, hence my plan to do one). It briefly appears with its tail to the camera (and it is tiny) in the docking bay sequence before Anikan goes to see the Chancellor at an opera. It appears they just did a repaint of the digital Falcon for that rather then using a physical model. The illustrations in the book indeed look to be based on an Ertl kit, but it appears to be more of a design study drawing rather then a picture of a physical model. As for an MPC model being "canon" or not, depends on whom you talk to (call it a YT-1300B perhaps, capable of carrying a tick more cargo due to its slightly taller size?). But since the image in ROTS seemed to be an alteration of the digital Falcon ILM first came up wit for the Special Edition movies, it would more then likely have the short sidewalls on it as well.

Yes, a CG model based entirely on the Erlt, I should have stated that clearly. But wonder why they don't used their own resource or that of the Special Editions but they just go with the Erlt. I do agreed that the one appeared in ROTS (briefly and tiny-ly) could be one of its variants. Imagine if this is included as official, the Erlt kit would get a new lease of life where we can just build it OOB.

As for the Revell, I look forward to getting those soon!

B

Edited July 11, 2008 by Boxster

[mightymax]

Okay stupid question.

I always thought the mandibles on the Falcon were to grasp cargo containers or were some other aid in helping load cargo.

So if that is the case would'nt the cockpit and tunnel coming from between the mandibles just render them (mandibles) as useless?

What am I missing ?

Cheers,

Max Bryant

[Boxster]

Maybe they got another door to stuff the cargo in? :unsure:

B

[dedalus]

did someone here say that the yt-1300 makes an appearance in the movie "revenge of the sith?" I don't remember this, not to question anybody because I only saw it once. I've found it hard to sit through the new movies, but I'll do it again if I know what to look for. If the YT-1300 does indeed show up, where is it? I mean, I've heard of it, and if it's in one of the many novels that has been inspired by Star Wars, I wouldn't be surprised, but in a movie? Let me know. Thanks.

And as for the mandible issue on the FM Millennium Falcon? That one issue has kept mine in the box, and unbuilt. I plan on cutting the mandible sections almost completely off--just leaving them connected at the very outer edges. Then I will push them in slightly for the right angle, sliding them underneath the saucer section. I'm just waiting until I have the guts. I can do that. But the thing I can't correct is the concaveness of the saucer section. It is too flat, and way too sturdy to place an insert inside the middle of the saucer section as some have done with the MPC/Ertl kit to make it thicker in the middle while still retaining the correct sidewall height.

[Andre]

did someone here say that the yt-1300 makes an appearance in the movie "revenge of the sith?"

Yup - pic.

It's in the movie right after the transport that Obi-Wan and Anakin take after crashing General Grievous' ship is landing - you can see it in the lower right corner of the shot.

HTH,

Andre