# Differences between blueprints and Flying Sub/Spindrift miniatures?



## 71challenger (Nov 22, 2008)

Seeing some of the great large scale scratchbuilds on this site has definitely been the impetus I needed to get going on a flying sub project of my own. There have been a lot of blueprints posted here and on other sites particularly of the flying sub and spindrift. I've come across a few comments in my browsing that the actual miniatures don't match the blueprints. Gary Kerr who probably has more knowledge than anyone else on the planet regarding the flying sub wrote on another thread that the contours between the 3 sizes of miniatures were all slightly different, as all were hand made and that's to be expected. 
But there have been other comments from others that seem to indicate a specific knowledge of specific points of difference between the posted blueprints and specific miniatures. Does anyone have specific information that they'd like to share? Besides the fins. I'm slowly finishing the buck for my flying sub, so now is the time I should be finding this out. I know many will say wait for the Moebius kit as it should be accurate but that's still several months away and it's not in my scale and I'm not much of a kit builder anymore so that's a lot to spend for just a reference and lots can go wrong between mapping the real thing and producing a model (look at the Hot Wheels Batmobile - close but no cigar and they had the real thing, too). 
Basically I'm using the blueprints to start and then I'm using all the photos I can find and captures from DVDs to verify. I personally think that the fs blueprints show a ship that's a little too curvy, especially at the ends of the wings, so I've toned them down a bit.


----------



## starseeker2 (Jun 13, 2008)

Nearly 70 views and not a reply to your question. Which means a) nobody cares or b) that nobody really has any info or c) that the idea of using an actual miniature as the basis for the model rather than the blues is really nothing more than a motherhood statement, "like puppies are cute", something you can't really disagree with. 
This whole subject is why I just gave up visiting another site entirely (well, that and the fact that 8/10 people there seemed to be inordinately proud of embarrassing personal dysfunctions. [In these trouble economic times, it would seem that model manufacturers could probably do well by investing in Depends stock before announcing new kit releases]). Everybody seems to know exactly what various the miniatures and props looked like, how many there were, when they were used, without a shred of anything to back anything up, and without ever bothering to even Google the subject and finding out what else is on line. (I just stumbled across a teenie little picture of the original pencil and vellum blueprint of the Chariot body without the Snow Cat chassis mounted on a Chariot-sized pivot that was used to film "process shots" with the actors inside. The bp refers to using the "existing steel and glass" Chariot [as nearly as I can make out] as opposed to an aluminum and plastic Chariot, the plans which are the only ones I've ever seen. But everyone Knows there was only one Chariot, despite the 2 interiors.) Or without even bothering to look videos of the subject they're making. 
There was a recent release of a sf model that seemingly everyone universally praises (sounds like the greatest kit made in the history of the world), yet just by looking at a couple episodes of the show, you can see how far off so much of it is. And supposedly they had access to much info taken from the lone surviving miniature.
All these people who cry out for an "accurate" model out of the box. Ok, as far as the Flying Sub goes, accurate to which miniature? As you said, the 9, 18, and 36" all had slightly different contours. Plus 4 different interior variations, which were all of a different scale to the exterior. Which is the one you liked the looks of best on screen? Is that the one you want to model? 
If a kit comes out based on scans of one of those miniatures, how do you know the finished kit actually captured what was measured? You don't. You're only taking the manufacturers word for it, be it Flying Sub, B17, 64 1/2 Mustang, Lunar Module. On the 30th it'll be 6 months to the day since I started my latest model, and with any luck it'll be finished by that day, too. Huge number of changes just to make it look like what is obvious on TV. 
You quoted Gary Kerr above. In an article om modeling the Flying Sub, Gary Kerr says the first thing you need to do is do as much research as you possibly can. 
That's why I like this site: you have a few crazy, crazy people here (see the Skickies) who are willing to put in the research and take the time and trouble to try to make their models as "good" as they can be made. And share their information. Will their be "accurate"? Never. Not with miniatures of different scales that changed appearance and detail over time. Will they look exactly the way their builders intended them to look, with all the colors and details they want to incorporate from whatever sources they want to use? Probably. Will they totally knock our socks off when they're done? Of that I have absolutely no doubt. 
Don't overly worry about totally conforming to blueprints. But don't take anyone's word that any kit will be "accurate" or even look much like what you can see on screen. Figure out the philosophy behind your model (kit or scratch) and build from there, from an out of box with a squues of Squadron's and a rattle can of paint or to an after combing thru every scrap of info that you can find and fixing every possible insane obsessive detail. 
Neither way is wrong, neither model is "better" than the other, and there are a thousand other possibilities between and beyond those two extremes. 
As long as it's fun, is all that counts. Otherwise you might as well take a toothbrush and clean the grout in the tiles in your bathroom. If you're not having fun you might as well at least be doing something useful.


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

Dear Challenger: It's true that it more often than not it takes alot of research to produce an accurate model that resembles what all see on the small screen... Irwin Allen related Studio blueprints were used as a rudimentary guide in matching the filming miniatures and full sized sets produced.... I could be wrong, but I believe that the models most of us would like to have are of the "hero" miniatures most often used like the 4ft. Jupiter 2 with landing gear or the 3ft.* and 18 inch flying subs or the only actual filming miniature used of the Spindrift rather than the full sized sets. The best thing to do is collect photos of these miniatures and If all possible, photograph and measure their proportions, contours etc. yourself.* I was fortunate enough to actually see the original Spindrift and several flying sub miniatures in the past. The Spindrift looks VERY different than any interpretation or blueprint I've ever seen.....The sides and front feature many organic compound, subtle* curves......not anything* like the straight top fuselage to bottom side lip of the full scale set.* Moebius's upcomming Flying Sub promises to be very accurate since it was patterned from computer scans of the actual 18 inch filming miniature which closely matches the 3 foot flying sub miniatures. However the 9 inch is very different in shape. Can't wait to get one myself.* In the future, when I obtain a scanner that works and can figure out how to use it, I'll share many photos in my collection. By the way, have you ever seen the Seaview models produced by *************?........They are by far the most accurate I have EVER seen. We can only hope to see more of his amazing talent in the future.** Best of luck to you and happy modeling.:thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Mark Dorais said:


> By the way, have you ever seen the Seaview models produced by *************?........They are by far the most accurate I have EVER seen.


Yup.

When it comes to the Seaview, Paul's Da Man.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Although a bit cynical sounding in tone, I basically agree with the other posts here. When it comes to the subjective "accuracy" of a model, my personal desire is to have one that does not deviate in detail or proportion to what I see on screen. Understand that I am a professional draftsman and have an above average eye for size and proportion so I "see" deviations that many people overlook. And I am not the only one here who has this ability or feel this way. Some people see the drudgery of doing the necessary research to make a model as "accurate as possible" to be an onerous effort but for me, that quest for knowledge about a given subject is a big part of the fun. It is very much a "treasure hunt" and to me, just as fun.

I have seen nothing so far to suggest that the Irwin Allen models deviated in any significant way from the Art Department blueprints. This is the whole reason that they are drawn, so the craftsmen have a guide to build the sets and miniatures from. The greater deviation from the plans seems to be seen in the smaller models. The bigger "hero" models look to be very close to the plans. The Fox Art Department drew some of the best plans of any studio, complete with excellent contour drawings (I know because I own hundreds of sheets of them). The changes are usually seen in the realization of specific details rather than in overall dimension, proportion or configuration. Not all studios are the same however, Paramount drew up equally excellent blueprints for "War of the Worlds" and "When Worlds Collide" while plans from MGM (America) seem simple by comparison. British vehicle plans, like those drawn for "Thunderbirds", only consist of basic 5-view drawings, the contours seem to be up to the model builders to estimate (which is why there is so little consistency between models of the same subject at different scales). So one must take this issue on a case-by-case basis. In general however, I would say that "Fox" subjects (including non-IR subjects) are very well defined by the studio plans.

Phil


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

And you're the man Carson for sharing these gorgeous photos of Paul's work. He is the king of the Seaview. Thanks for your comment.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

First, Welcome to the Forum Mark.

Comming from another Irwin Allen Fanantic! I have seen your Artwork, and it is simply breathtaking:thumbsup:

..I have mentioned here in the past about Mr. Lubliner. He is the King of all things related to Voyage..


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

Dear BeatlePaul: WOW....another amazing Seaview!! Thank you for your very kind compliment. When I've spoken with ************* in the past, we've always agreed that creating an accurate model based on a filming miniature is alot like painting a traditional realistic potrait......Initially It's not about capturing every pore in the subjects skin or painting every eyelash. It's about two most important things; first measuring the correct proportions and secondly measuring the correct contours. After that you're home free and can add all the detailing you want. Hope to continue seeing more of your wonderful models. Take Care


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I used to know Paul personally. He had this gorgeous 8 foot Seaview he was working on with the both a 4 window and 8 window head. In 1994, I bought his 2 footer for $200 and gave him $1000 for the 8 footer with 8 windows. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to complete it due to finances.

Ultimately, after 8 years, we parted ways, sad to say, due to his not delivering the 8 footer. I miss him and wish him well. He is a true Artist, and while the 2 footer ended up costing me $1200, I still value it as a piece of sculpture. (I still have to build it, though....)


----------

