# Leif Ericson Landing Gear - ?



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Guys,

I'm thinking of using my Interplanetary UFO Mystery Ship - or to be more exact, my SSC _John Glenn_ (which see below) - in a diorama that would depict it as having landed on a planet's surface. The ability of Explorer Class ships to do so was established in the story that came with the original issue of the kit. So the question about landing gear arises.

My original intention was to carve some gear wells out of the lower hull, box them in, and then come up with something along the lines of those oversized feet benath the scout craft. However, after looking at the bottom of the lower hull half, I'm not so sure I need any gear at all. Couldn't the semi-ellipse that continues aft to morph into the two triangular forms at the tail be a specially designed arrangement to absorb the shock of landing and bear the weight of the ship at rest?

The lower hull will certainly sit flat on a plane surface. I can see where some small support might be needed for the neck, although I haven't yet broken the nose shield off its sprue and dryfitted the whole model together to see whether it could serve that function. Cozmo's use of the many hatches for landing craft seem to add to the argument that an Explorer Class ship could not sit very far off the ground for these hatches to be of much use.

Opinions?


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I always figured that the oval ridge on the bottom was a landing skirt. If that is the case then the ship would need a large/flat area to land. retractable gear would help with rougher terrain, but it would add mass and complexity, and take up valuable interior space.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Scroll to the bottom of this link page. It shows a little bit of the landing gear.

http://www.projectrho.com/SSC/groundcar.html

-Jim


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Thanks, Jim, I'd forgotten where I'd seen those. If one wanted to model a landing support for the neck, it looks to me as though he could use the optional phaser cannon. Now I'm getting juiced enough to go downstairs and see dry fit the model to see how much support the neck really would need.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Mark McGovern said:


> Thanks, Jim, I'd forgotten where I'd seen those. If one wanted to model a landing support for the neck, it looks to me as though he could use the optional phaser cannon. Now I'm getting juiced enough to go downstairs and see dry fit the model to see how much support the neck really would need.


Glad to have been a help.
But you know that you're going to have to post pictures of your LE, right?
-Jim


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

There's a door right on the underside of the neck that would be a logical place for the nose gear. The neck cut goes right through the door.


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

When they made the model they left a few things out, like the underside of the ship.

The hull is hardened as you would expect a spacecraft such as the Galactic Cruiser to be. The keel strakes double as the main landing surface and there is an extendable landing leg forward just where Frank says it is. The gravity drive allows the ship to settle gently on an unprepared surface and equipment aboard the ship can contour the surface after landing.

The undersides of early Galactic Cruisers didn't have a lot of external detail, but the later models do. The versions with a particle beam weapon directly linked to the reactor have two smaller landing pads forward, rather than the single, larger pad.

Early underside


Later underside


Some other things left off of the kit


Other versions of the Galactic Cruiser that the model companies haven't kitted


Not that I'm obsessed with the Galactic Cruiser or anything like that.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

MY THREAD!!! COZMO HIGHJACKED MY THREAD!!! CALL CAPTAIN WALKER!!! RED ALERT! RED ALERT! RED ALERT!


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

Marks is clearly not on his pills ...'again' :freak: 

Landing gear is a great idea. I can under stand the 'skirt' thing but I prefer landing feet/gear myself....if not a combo. I have been wondering myself how to do this one.

Thanks for the images Jim! I love the whole concept. 

Very nice work as usual Cozmo! obsessed? No way :tongue: LOL


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Wow fluke, you're quite welcome.:thumbsup:
-Jim


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

fluke said:


> Marks is clearly not on his pills ...'again'


 Look who's talking. :dude:


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

Ouch, try to help a feller' out...

I thought I was being nice by not going into the whole electric vs. hydraulic landing gear mechanism debate that threatened to delay the Galactic Cruiser program.

The designers of the Galactic Cruiser watched the second remake of the Aliens movie while growing up and had definite beliefs that there should not too many openings for a stowaway to enter. If you look closely at the forward gear wells in the building plans there are industrial strength bug-zappers in them, and every other opening in the early model Galactic Cruisers.

Since space was already at a premium, they went with strengthened keel stakes instead of more complicated main landing gear. I don't remember what page, but the book "The Galactic Cruiser in FEDeration service, volume 1" goes into this in some detail.

But then, the Galactic Cruiser has served for so long, with so many different operators, the the addition of main lander gear cannot be ruled out. If you have pictures of these modifications, Spacecraft.net may be interested. I certainly would be.


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

This kits re-release is certainly one of the best things that has happened in a long time! I can't wait to pick up mine...my local HS still has a few on the shelf.

Hey Mark! at least my meds and institutionalization are voluntary :tongue::freak::wave:
....now a raspberry thptphtphtphpthhpthhpp!!!!!


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

cozmo said:


> ...Since space was already at a premium, they went with strengthened keel stakes instead of more complicated main landing gear.


Hopefully by 2075, SSC designers would've learned to KISS. :hat:



fluke said:


> Hey Mark! at least my meds and institutionalization are voluntary....


Same for me, wise guy!

...I voluntarily followed the court's orders.


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

Don't ever change Mark! 

*Question about the Leif Ship:*

Would it be considered a sin to choose or change the scale? I'm thinking 1/350th so I can use my unused Titanic figures. The ship seems to me about that anyways....but its been a while since I have seen the ship or held the scout craft ....and...Can the the clear resin parts still be ordered and from who? Thanks in advance.

I built this last in 75....this is going to be fun!


----------



## Spockr (Sep 14, 2009)

fluke said:


> ...Can the the clear resin parts still be ordered and from who? Thanks in advance.
> 
> I built this last in 75....this is going to be fun!



I picked up some beautiful looking clear red resin engines came from Modelnutz who posts here sometimes.

I also came across these:
http://www.starshipmodeler.biz/shop/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_ID=1769

No truer word than "fun" can be spoken when referring to building this model. I'm close to completing my first of three planned builds.

Enjoy!

Regards,
MattL


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I used the Resin engines from Modelnutz also. I was very happy with them! Very nice casting and only a small mod to put lights in them. I would recommend them.


----------



## Joe Brown (Nov 16, 1999)

fluke said:


> Don't ever change Mark!
> 
> *Question about the Leif Ship:*
> 
> ...


It's your model, and you can do it anyway that you want to!

Now, with that being said... 

The Leif Ericson kit in styrene, at 1/500 scale, 13.1678 inches long. (334.5mm)
The Glow In The Dark Mystery Ship kit in styrene, at 1/500 scale, 13.0 inches long. (330.2mm)
At 1/350 scale, a model of this would need to be 1.57 ft, or 18.81 inches long.

The length difference comes from the 'cut-neck' of the 1970's re-box of the kit.

Frank Henriquez makes a really, *really* convincing argument with the research that he did to determine the scale of the ship:
http://frank.bol.ucla.edu/le.html#kitscale

You don't have to believe him, or his pictures, but I really think he nailed the scale.

The rest of his Leif page:
http://frank.bol.ucla.edu/le.html


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

Thanks Joe -
My best guess for the kit scale came out to 1/500. There are sections of the kit that are waaay beyond that, for example, some of the doors in the Scout bay (with door knobs, no less) are huge; if they're crew doors, they would be closer to 1/300 or larger:










With crew:










They're easily well over 12 feet high in 1/500.

That said, one of the cool things about the LE is that you can do whatever you want with it. Rescaling it to 1/350 would work, although some areas (like the conning tower) would be very tight and the Scout would be a bit cramped as well (I'm not sure that scaled to 1/350 it would have enough room for a crew member to stand up inside). The scout bay would be still be ridiculously over scale in 1/350. At least the doorknob won't be at forehead level!

I say rescale it to 1/350 anyway and have fun! 

Frank


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

It is a fun build.:thumbsup:
-Jim


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Frank2056 said:


> ...That said, one of the cool things about the LE is that you can do whatever you want with it...
> 
> At least the doorknob won't be at forehead level!
> 
> I say rescale it to 1/350 anyway and have fun!


Frank,

Of these three statements of yours, I would only argue with one. The feature in the scout bay that you're identifying as a door might not be a door at all - at least, not one in the sense of it being strictly designed for crew access. If it is a door, couldn't it have been made to accomodate large components, store Cozmo's crane or something? By simply saying "it's not a door" we can eliminate this objection to the notion that the model is 1/500 scale.

By the same token it's just as easy for fluke to say, "the model *is* 1/350 scale" and build his as he pleases - might as well, since he marches to the beat of a different drummer anyway... :roll:


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

OK! .....so I took the short bus...so what! LOL :tongue::freak:

I have decided not to change the scale and go with the 1/500 as it seems to be the best choice, mainly as I have decided not to use any figures as I'm not building a diorama just a bare landing pad so the forward and rear ramps can be in the down positions.

At 1/500 I will use 30 mil optics for the majority of the port holes and a few 20 mil for the others. 

Blinking nav / formation lights and a custom clear bridge/control center and 
a custom crews lounge that will have larger windows. 

As this ship fits in well with the Star Trek look I am thinking of making it Federation vessel. 

I pick up my kit this Friday and hope to have my hobby station set up as I have only been in my new apartment three weeks now.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

fluke said:


> OK! ..... I have only been in my new apartment three weeks now.


Apartment - the administration there came up with a very nice reference for you, flukie. I hope your "apartment" has a nice view of the grounds.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

cozmo said:


> When they made the model they left a few things out, like the underside of the ship.
> 
> The hull is hardened as you would expect a spacecraft such as the Galactic Cruiser to be. The keel strakes double as the main landing surface and there is an extendable landing leg forward just where Frank says it is. The gravity drive allows the ship to settle gently on an unprepared surface and equipment aboard the ship can contour the surface after landing.
> 
> ...


Not obssesed? Yeah right, and I own a star ship named Enerprise that can get up to warp 25.:tongue:


----------



## Joe Brown (Nov 16, 1999)

I knew that there were more 'takes' on the possible landing gear -- on Nyrath's site, he features some art by R. Dennis Antinori. This was from the aborted 'Empire of Man' (Niven & Pournelle's Mote In God's Eye) RPG game. 

http://www.projectrho.com/SSC/antinori03.jpg


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

I think I've figured out what color the hull should be: whatever it takes to match the grays of the decals. Jeffery T., if you're listening, have you got any color information about the decals that would be of use?


----------



## BigH827 (Mar 17, 2007)

Finding them is the fun part, but I have seen art work of the LE with wheeled landing gear, useing an airport to take off and land.
I think the harded lower hull maes more since, as it alows more room in side the ship.


----------



## SPQR (Jul 12, 2010)

im waiting for my ufo ship to come in.. im going to purchase a pta-icarus and kitbash it into the ufo body and the landing legs will be visible via open hatches. trying to figure out whats the best icarus to get 1. a 3" RESIN icarus. 2. a 12" wilco icarus. again got to wait for the ufo to come in.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

SP',

Rather than tear up a nice resin kit, why not an aircraft model? Frequently people auction off piles of parts or old buildups on eBay. You could cannibalize gear from these that would have a higher level of detail than the spaceship itself.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

BTW, am I the only one who didn't care for the new story that came on the reissue instruction sheet? Usually, if somebody produced something I didn't like, I've just had to grin and bear it (as in, the Phantom Zone criminals in _Superman II_ having the power to emit energy beams from their fingers - where'd that come from?). This new story left me cold, so I wrote my own.

If you're waiting for the firing squad to load up or otherwise have a little time on your hands, you can read my version by clicking here.


----------



## Joe Brown (Nov 16, 1999)

As a long-time fan of the SSC Universe, I like your version MUCH better than what was included with new re-release! :thumbsup:


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

Mark McGovern said:


> BTW, am I the only one who didn't care for the new story that came on the reissue instruction sheet?


No, but I never liked the original either.


Mark McGovern said:


> If you're waiting for the firing squad to load up or otherwise have a little time on your hands, you can read my version by clicking here.


Whew, scared me at first. Explorer class Galactic Cruiser, four ship squadron, duplication of a ships name (Marco Polo) had me about to check my privacy software...but nothing else was similar.

Pretty neat, and I tend to stay far away from what others are doing with the SSC universe.

But...perplexity?

Building and modifying spaceships is a whole lot easier than writing. I applaud your efforts.

You have much more faith in humanity than I. Less than 65 years for us to become interstellar, be spread out among the stars with a unified organization to represent the entire race? That's positive thinking.

Now I see where RED ALERT came from.:lol:


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Coz,

Given that we're already thirteen years past the launch of the _Jupiter II_, I would have to cede your point, except that we're not living in the SSC universe. That's what makes Sci-Fi so much fun, remember? :tongue:


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

Mark McGovern said:


> Coz,
> That's what makes Sci-Fi so much fun, remember? :tongue:


So much for the whole "the science is settled" argument. Dang, hoisted on my own petard.

On the other hand, there is a lot that has to happen to get from our current technological, geo-political and all around enlightened situation to what you described is quite a leap even in our hyper accelerated times. 

The last century was full of great advancements in all fields, but to get where you are, millions, perhaps billions, of people will have to take flight to the stars and create whole new civilizations. That takes time even with fleets of spaceships.

Put your story to close to the present (or use examples that may turn out to be wrong) and you run into the same problems LIS and countless other stories have run into.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

cozmo said:


> ...On the other hand, there is a lot that has to happen to get from our current technological, geo-political and all around enlightened situation to what you described is quite a leap even in our hyper accelerated times...


 Gnaarrr...It's like all of a sudden I'm on _The Big Bang Theory_.

Okay, let's go over it all again. The part of your post that I quoted is perfectly true if we assume that the whole Strategic Star Command universe is a viable extension of our current one and that 2075 is based on the Julian calendar. However, the existence of an SSC could be feasible under at least three possible circumstances:

The good folks at AMT got their dates wrong and inadvertantly used the wrong numeral to indicate the date in which the SSC is in operation. Instead of "2075" what about "2705"?
The SSC is indeed in operation by 2075, but in an alternate universe, similar to our own, in which man has learned to live with himself, harness the forces of Nature for benificent purposes only, and toil diligently toward the goal of Universal Peace.
The whole SSC universe is a work of fiction.
Personally, I like option #1 the best. The second one describes a place that makes me want to toss my Sam Adams Cream Stout for just writing about it. And I can't bring myself to face #3 (I think ol' Sam is involved there, too).


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

Mark McGovern said:


> Gnaarrr...It's like all of a sudden I'm on _The Big Bang Theory_.


Now you have me confused.

You can stop with a derivative of option one...a typo that went uncaught.

Though "0" and "1" are on opposite ends of the keyboard, that mistake has been made more than once. Then you only have to look at history as a guide to put together a plausible time line of what would need to happen to get from where we are now, to where you want to be. The discovery, exploration, colonization and maturation of the new world is a good guide. The mid 22nd century is what I came up with, but I don't have the SSC as far along as you have it. I'm concentrating on the events, and wars, that lead up to the unification of humanity under a single representative government:devil:

Just don't put to many major events at the beginning of the time line. Or you run into things like the launch of the Botany Bay in 1996 (or was it the Eugenics wars in 1996 that lead to the launching of the Botany Bay). I sometimes wonder if the writers ever thought that stuff would be remembered by the time their events were supposed to have happened.

And don't toss alcohol, that stuff is too precious to waste on something that can be calmly thought out.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

cozmo said:


> The mid 22nd century is what I came up with, but I don't have the SSC as far along as you have it.


Whadaya mean, *I *have it? We're talkin' about AMT's creation here. For all we know, they think Khan and his pals conquered the world and organized the Strategic Star Command themselves. I merely built upon that which has already been established.



cozmo said:


> Just don't put to many major events at the beginning of the time line.


Why not? Nothing propels technological progress like a good bloodbath. That and Sci-Fi movies. As for the writers, prior to the Age of Home Video, I doubt they worried about anything more than whether the producers' checks would be honored at the bank. Since the AHV, the writers only worry about whether the royalty checks will arrive without a fight.



cozmo said:


> And don't toss alcohol, that stuff is too precious to waste on something that can be calmly thought out


No need for concern there - two things I avoid religiously are tossing alcohol and calm thinking. :drunk:


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Any progress Mr. Mark?
-Jim


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Not a whit, Mr. James. I have just had the good fortune to turn 'pro' and build models for a manufacturer that will be nameless for the time being. There are several kits I must have finished in time for the iHobby show in October, so my own personal schedule has gone phut.

You'll just have to live with the title of Premier _Leif Ericson_ Modeler...for now. :devil:


----------

