CT The lost pilots and scenes from the Endor space battle in Return of the Jedi

Hernalt

You are going to love this, images of Executor's outer edge including part of the bow!

http://imgur.com/a/Zt9Y4

Just my gut feeling but it looks like it would be several hundred meters tall in real life.

 

Possibly the "Communications Ship" due to the extra bridge nodules. With the Falcon way in front of the tower, it still looks smaller than the port-side dome - suggesting that the domes are in fact larger than the Falcon, and thus that the tower is larger than a TESB tower.

 

Iron_lord

So essentially you keep saying that the model makers didn't know what they were doing, but the VFX composers did know? Seriously?

So according to the VFX composers in ROJ the Rebel Blockade Runner is sometimes only 30 m in length and sometimes 300 m?

Isn't it rather obvious that the ILM model makers used the Falcon attached to the back of the Avenger as a size reference when they designed the large balcony bridge module because it matches perfectly in size?

 

Given that the Falcon suffers from TARDIS syndrome, being noticeably bigger on the inside - doesn't that suggest that model design isn't always "100% accurate" and that certain compromises need to be made when coming up with "official sizes for ships"?

 

In the scene where the Falcon is attached to the back of the Avenger we see its cockpit from the out- and inside and both match perfectly well and provide the audience with an accurate sense of scale.

In addition we get plenty of exterior shots of the Falcon in ANH, ESB and ROJ that clarify its "exterior" size, and last but not least you yourself posted the "official" length figure a couple of posts earlier.
In contrast to the overwhelming majority of exterior and cockpit shots, we just have 2-3 scenes with a bigger interior than should be possible.

 

80 ft long and 70 ft wide? Problematic, as Gorefiend has pointed out numerous times in the past.

This site goes into more detail:

http://www.synicon.info/SW/mf/falcon.htm

suffice to say that it isn't just a case of or or two scenes.

 

IIRC the life-size Falcon in ESB was 65' wide (19.81 m). I already used the bigger figure you seemed to prefer for the graphic comparison (24.4 m).



Maybe the top globes should somehow inflate, so that the front view should yield a conning tower width of 270 m instead?

 

24.4 m is still a bit too low.

Going by this:

http://www.synicon.info/SW/mf/sizetabl.htm

a 34.8m long Falcon is going to be 27m wide.

The 34.52m TFA Falcon is unlikely to be as low as 24.4m wide, therefore.

 

The Avenger Star Destroyer conning tower would still only be 228.4 m wide (and the ship 1,429 m long).

 

Background filler shape in upper right and lower left. Other images exist that could flesh out this shape but it is invariably used only for background texture. Entertaining the wrong idea that this was ever intended to mean a ship-like shape, instead of being a bit of flotsam and peripheral distraction to simulate a crowded field... This shape is upside down in the upper left. This scene is where the MF flies low over the ISD-like surface, i.e., a visual precedent prior to the full possible implications of the long ISD-like surface.


This ship can be thought of as an intentionally ship-like shape. Its least lousy resolution places it roughly in a size class with the blockade runner:


The above cruiser shows up several times, much smaller, in other scenes. The background cruiser at left is upside down in comparison to every other appearance of this background cruiser, like as shown at right. This scene is where the MF flies low over the ISD-like surface, i.e., a visual precedent prior to the full possible implications of the long ISD-like surface.


At the very end, after Lando's brexit, there are three Freedom-class and two Home One-class that are upside down. This is a visual precedent that follows the two (above) examples of unambiguously upside down images / background shapes / ship-like shapes / plausible unidentified Rebel cruisers.


A note on size. The two precedent shapes that precede the final frames showing the full length of the ISD-like surface are arguably not of an ISD-like size. To propose that there is an upside down ISD in the middle of a battle in which not a single upside down anything has been seen demands explanation. Saxton lifts no finger to justify his assertion that the ISD-like surface "is" a ventral surface. This here is the homework that Saxton should have done if he was attempting to provide a scientific basis for his assertion. So this homework is done. Unidentified Rebel cruisers exist that are upside down with respect to each other in the same frame, and are presented prior to the full presentation of the ISD-like surface. And then finally the last images present Rebel cruisers of the actual size class of an ISD that are unmistakably upside down.

 

I noticed that the first example, which was an upside down image in the same frame as a right side up image, had another example of upside down image, of better resolution, in a different frame. This could help in determining or speculating on whether it is intended to be a ship-like ship. This better resolution could support that it is something like an unused prop of the helmet and goggle ilk. Upright versions of the goggle-type portion of the image, however, have an attachment to the right side, which breaks any illusion of this shape, in general, appearing to be symmetric.

 

Ha ha ha - no.

 

That was exactly what I was looking for. Shame it's incomplete and missing the middle with the G structure. I have two measurements from two different sections of the model that are not wildly different. I used the imgur image of the left-most section and focused on the small cluster of lights on the right that form five rows of windows. A minimum value for level height assumes that each row represents low minimal head clearance for the engineering type work spaces of enlisted men, for a floor to ceiling clearance of two meters, and a half meter for floor and ceiling structure. A maximum value for level height assumes that each row represents high minimal head clearance as seen on the film sets of Star Destroyer interiors, frequented by officers, for a floor to ceiling clearance of three meters, and a one meter floor and ceiling structure. Comparing pixel extents of the five rows of windows and that of the top to bottom of the trench, the lower value of 2.5 meters per level gives a total height of 258.5 meters. The higher value of 4 meters per level gives 413.6 meters height.

The other imgur image of the front / bow section didn't have a nice section to get estimates off of. Both uses of this prop in the film, however, show a certain section of the prop that has a trio of window rows. I did the same process on the fully shown trench in the Nebulon B broadside shot, using the same range values of 2.5 and 4 meters. I got a total trench height of 240.75 meters and 385.2 meters height. Roughly speaking, the ILM prop represents a range of height between 250 meters and 400 meters. Wikipedia Legends Nebulon B has a total height of 166 meters.

 

can I ask a question -

I was once told that Philip Peecher was a pseudonym for Alan Arnold who wrote the Making of ESB book , he used a pseudonym on the ROJ book because Lucasfilm cut a lot out of his ROJ book and he wasn't happy about it .

anyone know if this is true ?

 

That's what I've heard as well, although I can't vouch for the truth of it.

 

Just found something interesting a few minutes ago as I felt compelled to go into my archive, to verify McQuarrie's annotations in the Return of the Jedi Portfolio.



Annotation # 19 (for the above portfolio painting)

"The B-wing fighter, a new type of ship with pilot and copilot enclosed in a command pod on one wing, becomes part of the massive Rebel attack on the Death Star. One of the B-wings has just scored a shattering, explosive hit on an Imperial Star Destroyer."

I think this explains why they built a larger cockpit / command pod in the first place, i.e. for two pilots.

 

And another McQuarrie pre-production painting for the space battle that caught my attention:



Annotation # 18 (^^)

"An armada of Rebel cruisers, led by Admiral Ackbar's flagship, are silhouetted against the monumental surface of the Death Star. Two A-wing fighters in the distance are speeding to a confrontation with the Imperial Star Destroyers, which have already opened fire on one of the Rebel ships. ..."

Hold a second, remember Hobbie's "[just] two fighters aganst a Star Destroyer"? Sounds to me as if the A-Wing had been specifially designed to go for Star Destroyers...

 

If you mean by longer, this is a good guess. B-Wing has been associated with a bomber roll, and that really ought to require a bombardier-analogue crew member in addition to the pilot. That's a nicely early date for that mention. There are several B-Wing / Alien fighter period authentic sketches. I have three scans (I think from the ROTJ Joe Johnston sketchbook) "REBEL SPACECRAFT FIGHTERS" page 93-95. The 93 sketch has two crew compartments / bubbles; one for pilot and one for gunner/bombardier. Page 94 has just the single cockpit we recognize. The cockpit is somewhat long enough to squeeze two human crew in there. Page 95 has two variants. The left most has a shorter version of the cockpit. If it could fit two crew, they would have to be back to back. The same can probably be said of the lower left version. Back to back, if at all, and entirely possible it was drawn as only one crew, the pilot. The Relative Speed / Maneuverability Chart, the B-Wing version is a shorter cockpit version, which might require back to back, but I can plainly see that if all those ships are to scale with each other, it is impossible to assign that the B-Wing cockpit is too short for two, considering the Y-Wing, which we now to have two seats.

By way of discursion, it did not 'used to be' that the B-Wing had any heritage of having some kind of combined beam like was seen in the episode of Rebels. I am able to seamlessly walk back from that concern because it was Lucas himself who devised that the Republic gunships had combined beam lasers. ( http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...are-literally-miniature-death-stars.50038902/ ) So the originating authority is of equal rank that combined beam, as an available concept, 'was a thing', at that time, available to some Mon Calamari Tesla character. So I can extend the courtesy to the spitball producers of that Rebels episode. They closed off the loop of implications by assigning that the weapon blew out the hyperdrive, and so, was not a practical choice. And this is in keeping with any number of military experimental aircraft that reached flight and just did not deliver what everyone needed.

 

Hernalt wrote

If you mean by longer, this is a good guess. B-Wing has been associated with a bomber roll, and that really ought to require a bombardier-analogue crew member in addition to the pilot.

I concur, the depiction in the painting and the caption / annotation seems to suggest rather clearly that the B-Wing has the unique capability to knock out a Star Destroyer and still survive the encounter.

Interestingly, the panoramic battle painting and caption # 18 also appears to suggest that A-Wings have a same or similar capability (two fighters voluntarily heading for a confrontation with a Star Destroyer???). Sleeping a night over it I realized that there is actually not a single scene in ROJ where an A-Wing shots down a TIE fighter.

As we've seen A-Wings weren't exclusively limited to the Green squadron (e.g. Red Three, Sila Kott), and then I remembered Ackbar's original orders:

Alarms are screaming and lights flashing as the huge ship changes course abruptly. Other ships in the fleet shoot by outside as the armada tries to halt its forward momentum.

ACKBAR Take evasive action! Green Group, stick close to holding sector MV-7.
(original dialogue: Green Group steer course for Holding Sector. MG-7 Blue Group -)

A Mon Calamari controller turns away from his screen and calls out to Ackbar, quite excited. The Admiral rushes over to the controller.

(first post in this thread)

As we saw earlier certain colored fighter squadrons / wings apparently belonged to certain groups (also including capital ships) and Ackbar ordered Green Group (including Green Squadron) to stick close to holding sector MV-7.

Assuming that Green (and Blue) Group were brought into the battle to inflict heavy damage on the Death Star and the Imperial fleet escort (encountered by the Tydirium Crew) I think I can understand that Ackbar instantly held those groups back, because the Death Star shield was still up and - at this moment - there was no sign of the Imperial fleet escort.

However, the moment the decision is made to attack the Imperial Star Destroyers

• we see two A-Wings (previously either being shot down by TIEs or pursued by these) joining the Falcon, an X- and a Y-Wing.
• we see one A-Wing firing a proton torpedo against the starboard shield power generator of an Avenger Class Star Destroyer
• we see two A-Wings knocking down a shield power Generator of the Super Star Destroyer and - last but not least -
• Green Leader ('Mad Max') attacking the conning tower of the Super Star Destroyer, ultimately ending in his fateful kamikaze ride

The onscreen footage itself appears to suggest that earlier during the battle, the A-Wings rather avoided confronting TIE fighters but once they got the order to attack the Imperial Star Destroyers they were in their "element".

And that the prime purpose of both the A- and the B-Wings might have been attacking Death star facilities and Star Destroyers, also becomes evident when we look at these original storyboards:



Of course, in the final film the B-Wing attack on the shield power generator was replaced by an A-Wing attack, but the combined evidence strongly suggests that their purpose in the Death Star battle was pretty much the same.

The one scene I was never really able to make a lot of sense out of it, was this one:



Both A-Wings fired what looked like two red energy beams at the shield power generator, yet causing no external damage to the dome casing, but somehow starting an internal reaction ultimately resulting in an explosion.

I wouldn't exclude that the possibility that the A-Wing fighters participating at the Battle of Endor (or at least those specific two) were equipped with ion cannons. The "ion beam" passed the casing, but crippled the magnetic field of the laserfusion reactor (the shape of these domes / power trees resembles the hypothetical drawings of laserfusion reactors quite a lot), resulting in a thermonuclear explosion no longer contained by the magnetic field.

If the A-Wings at the Battle of Endor (or several of these) were only equipped with ion cannons and proton torpedo launchers, this could very well explain why they seemed eager to avoid dogfighting Imperial TIE fighters.

 

Hm, I said bomber roll. That's a sushi dish.

I have not reviewed the research I did in the summer, so this may sound and be off-base and mis-remembered. I am just using some first principles to make a tentative point. So, B-Wing as bomber. A weapon capable of delivering energy that is capable of twisting WW2 ship bulkheads and rending WW2 ship hull is going to be such and such heavy. ( See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X ) That weapon's mass will not be delivered on an interceptor-role aircraft, not at least in the period. That weapon's mass will be delivered on a bomber-role aircraft. Perhaps that bomber is land-based, perhaps carrier based. The B-Wing has the obvious armament on the tail of what appears to be an energy weapon, analogue to laser or blaster or beam, etc. We of course never saw it in action in ROTJ. It is not seen in action in the opening of Droids. The first time it is ever presented is in the Rebels episode, and at that time is it presented in a counter intuitive manner. Why is it counter intuitive. Because the death star analogues of a multi-beam weapon all proceed from symmetrically shaped and symmetrically sized units. Using Air Force/Navy/Army aircraft that were extant as of 1975 through 1980, when all the Rebel fighters were being imagined, the presence of a single overpowering / overpowered laser/blaster/beam weapon on the tail of the B-Wing has a best semblance to the GAU-8 Gatling gun of the A-10 warthog. The A-10 was designed *around this weapon. This weapon has such and such a kick, in terms of reverse momentum on the total airframe, that the A-10 has a classified maximum continuous firing time before dropping to stall speed. If anyone challenges that I'll reconsult my source (AF/ANG). See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger:

The weapon can make the airplane proverbially 'stop' in mid air.

The main weapon of the B-Wing does not by itself suggest bomber role. If Imperial vessels are true analogues of earth naval vessels, there's going to be some optimization of heavy deck armor, hull armor, etc against general maneuverability and speed. An A-10 Warthog having freedom to fire against an adversary ship, just crazy hypothetical, say... an Iranian destroyer, can probably put holes in its water line, and maybe not cause enough total dislocation of bulkheads or gross area openings in the hull, to cause instant sinking. Bombs and torpedoes on the other hand are for delivering large single impulse energies that can dislocate hull / keel / structural members. A caveat here is that for Imperial vessels to not be stupid in service of the rule of cool, they cannot be compromised just because their outer decks or outer hulls have been opened up to the vacuum. To take one out should require a high minimum impulse against nondescript hull, or a low minimum impulse lucky shot, or ace shot, against a specifically targeted vulnerability. It's a quite imperfect analogy between known physics sea faring and fantasy/fictional physics space faring. A ship that takes on water undergoes more and more stresses. A capital ship that loses more and more atmosphere to vacuum should in theory undergo less and less stress.

The B-Wing has a rotating cockpit. This is easily ratified under the rule of cool. It is also with little effort placed into a context with an overpowered tail weapon that, like the A-10 Gatling gun, alters the momentum and vector of the air frame itself. Now that I think of it, my old 1985 Kenner B-Wing had a tail main barrel that was off to the side. So you *could get impulses around one or two of the moments of inertia - just not the one that the rotating cockpit was in.

The concept art of the B-Wings launching torpedoes or missiles is the best fit to the bomber role. High yield ordinance. An obviously larger air frame. A reportedly slower air frame. We know from SW77 that Y-Wings, colloquially called bombers, were armed to drop proton torpedoes, which are self-propelling. And so there is no loss of generality calling B-Wings 'bombers' just because they launch self-propelled devices. I am now at the end of what I can surmise constructively about the B-Wing.

The image of the B-Wings having taken out a SD could be something other than indicative of their expectation. It could be that they were daring, heroic, and lucky. I'd have to revisit that question and maybe take into account the cues and slips of the pen in the Lost Rebels script / attack on the main communications ship. I'll try to comment on the A-Wing next.

 

I wonder if A wings and B wings are somehow designed to slip though shields. It seems throughout all 6 films, fighters can sometimes go through capital ship shielding, like DS1 and the SSD. Also there seems to be some weapons that can go through shields like they aren't even there, such as during the space battles in ROTJ and ROTS.

 

Just noticed. “The B-wing fighter, a new type of ship”. So the B-Wing as a function of the movie, ROTJ, as a function of the year, 1983, was a new ship to the rebellion as of ROTJ in 1983. Or using notation, B-Wing(ROTJ(1983)) was a new/recent ship to the rebellion as of time of events of ROTJ, as perceived from Earth at the time of 1983. There are two timelines in play that can be pinned down with references: One is the constantly advancing Now of earth science fiction/fantasy markets, and one is the opportunistically expanding space-time diameter of marketable conflict to be packaged from the franchise. This state of the system wtr the B-Wing that existed in 1983 cannot be un-existed by a different state existing in 2016. The notation to reflect present November 2016 understandings of the B-Wing would be B-Wing(some new SW book(2015 or 2016)) and/or B-Wing(Rebels(2016)), etc. This notation hopefully provides a non-threatening white flag / clean room / safety zone / archeological dig site for considering various historical strata / stratigraphy of Star Wars consumption. The funding to maintain the franchise, which backs the social currency to maintain the dig site, comes from 2016. The bread is buttered in 2016. But 2016 does not tell 1983, or 1980, what to be.

Something still bugging me about the B-Wing. I of course in 2016 celebrate the fact that the B-Wing and A-Wing have a combat role designation. But it occurred to me that here I was going on about the B-Wing bomber when I do not know the provenance of that assignment. It was received knowledge as of the time that I resumed my Star Wars consumption in December 2015. I do not yet locate independent Lucasfilm sourced references, of any period prior to the buyout, to the B-Wing *as a bomber. The B-Wing is referred to in prior period Lucasfilm and Kenner and Lego and other licenses as a “fighter” and “starfighter”.

The one fixed reference to a bomber, traceable to LFL, is the Y-Wing. Lucas commissioned Colin Cantwell to design a starfighter version of the Avenger, the Grumman TBF Avenger, which was a torpedo bomber. So the Y-Wing(SW77(1977)) inherited the property of “bomber”. One theory I can offer that may have incubated the assignment for the B-Wing is that the Kenner TIE Interceptor was released in the same year, 1984. What does an Interceptor Intercept? It is designed to intercept bombers or reconnaissance craft for the most part. Or more generally, intercept any enemy aircraft and interrupt its activities. This, Kenner “TIE Interceptor”, on top of the ESB debut of the Kenner die-cast “TIE Bomber”, on top of the Kenner “TIE Fighter”. So the Imperials had openly designated Fighters, Bombers and Interceptors, and the rebels had more ship types (4) but fewer ship designations/roles. Did WEG make the assignment? Late 1980’s? Some Star Wars novel of the 1990’s? Was it SW video games of 1990’s or 2000’s?

The same now goes for the A-Wing. Who is it that decided that the A-Wing was an Interceptor? The A-Wing is labelled during the Droids and Power of the Force toy runs as “fighter”. Interestingly, the Droids toy run had an “ATL Interceptor”. There may have been some corporate demographic-facing algorithm that decided what terms to exclude from the toys that were the recommended purchases for the ‘good side’. The “ATL Interceptor” was a naming choice by Kenner, slapped onto the unused design from the ROTJ “Death Star Defender”, to flesh out their Droids line: http://theswca.com/index.php?action=disp_item&item_id=49115 . So who assigned the “interceptor” (role) to the A-Wing, and “bomber” (role) to the B-Wing, when neither Lucasfilm nor Kenner did so, in the conspicuous presence of “TIE Fighter”, “TIE Bomber”, “TIE Interceptor”? Was there a corporate calculus? (And who assigned that the B-Wing was heir to and replacement for the Y-Wing?)

The post-ROTJ(1983) (late 80's? early 90's?) history of the B-Wing tried to run with some cues that exist in period evidence of the making of ROTJ era. The bulges and un-angular contours of the B-Wing fuselage, as well as the bulbous/pupa-shaped cockpit, were reminiscent of the Mon Cal cruisers in a manner that the A-Wing (or X or Y Wings) did not share. Period artwork, maybe by Joe Johnston, labelled it the ‘alien’ fighter. Archived, not easily sanitizable, sources show that some contributor thought the B-Wing should be designed by the Mon Calamari (a justifiable inference) and built by some alien race (an actual cue, if they had access to the concept sketch).

Here is one spare example where a licensed product, not LFL, does use the word “bomber”.

From: http://www.trollandtoad.com/p206305.html ; “Star Wars CCG Death Star II ” appears to have been released from 1995 to 2001: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Customizable_Card_Game

And it would seem that other researchers have arrived at a conclusion that there is no confusion in assigning that Blue Squadron at the BOE was or had B-Wings:

From: http://peristilcards.com/product/blue-squadron-b-wing/

Lt. Hija
“Ships of Star Wars (B-Wing)” (By some random internet person who has access to decanonized reference materials, and may or may not be embellishing what he has learned from them.)
http://imgur.com/gallery/QEn83

and wut…

 

I can't really add anything in terms of specifics but looking at a lot of the unused footage/scripts the general impression I get is that there was a move towards making the Endor space battle more "impersonal". Obviously we have Lando and he does play a dramatic role in the battle but elsewhere I think things are deliberately kept quite impersonal with more of a sense that the course of the battle ebbs and flows naturally on a larger scale rather than depending on specific moments of brilliance from the Rebels.

If that's the case I think it was very much the correct choice as it not only serves to keep more dramatic focus on the main characters but I think also gives gravity to the situation as whole. Really I would argue that this battle is the point we get the strongest sense of scale in the whole political situation. Yavin in ANH might end with the DS1 being destroyed but still its an attack on a handful of rebel ships, ESB shows us a bit more on Hoth but Endor is the point where you really get the biggest sense of the galaxy in conflict on a grand scale and seeing it unfold in a slower more impersonal fashion helps sell that.

 

Hernalt wrote

“Ships of Star Wars (B-Wing)” (By some random internet person who has access to decanonized reference materials, and may or may not be embellishing what he has learned from them.)
http://imgur.com/gallery/QEn83

I'm pretty certain the author/s used exclusively EU materials in their article, which becomes rather obvious when claimining that the B-Wing already existed five years before ANH (which is what Rebels adopted) which isn't what both the ROJ Sketchbook and Portfolio suggested back in 1983.

Of course, the port side view of the B-Wing will look roughly like a B.

"It did however interestingly lack an Astromech, which made long distance lightspeed jumps and in flight repairs difficult."



Well, I don't know where this is ANY evidence for that. The only thing that's obvious, IMHO, that X-Wings and Y-Wings have R2 sockets because there is no internal space left to accomodate an R2 unit.

Given the known size of the B-Wing cockpit, there'd be plenty of space for an R2 unit / copilot behind the pilot's compartment.

Hernalt wrote

The one fixed reference to a bomber, traceable to LFL, is the Y-Wing. Lucas commissioned Colin Cantwell to design a starfighter version of the Avenger, the Grumman TBF Avenger, which was a torpedo bomber.

I didn't know that. Can you provide a source where it says that the Grumman TBF Avenger was the real-life-aircraft that inspired the Y-Wing? I'm also asking because one of the (usually not acknowledged) films that influenced the Star Wars space battles a lot was Midway (which I saw prior to ANH back then).

When I saw the Y-Wings being taken down one after the other in ANH, that was quite some Déjà-Vu, but at Midway it were the pilots flying the Douglas TBD Devastator which were shot down one after the other (i.e. the 41 Devastators launched during the battle produced zero torpedo hits and only six survived to return to their carriers). In fairness to the Devastator, the newer TBF Avengers were similarly ineffective in 1942, losing five out of six aircraft without scoring a hit during the Battle of Midway.

 

It's a bit off-topic, but this lobby card from the theatrical release of Midway illustrates rather well (IMHO) to what extent this film inspired the VFX of the OT.