# Any interest in "larger" J2, FS1, Invaders, Spindrift Hulls?



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm out in the garage building masters for the three 1/24 24" diameter Gemini 12 and Jupiter 2 hulls based on the drawings on the SF Modeling J2 discussion thread. I'm also building masters for an 18" 1/24 Flying Sub hull based on the 18" miniature with the up curved wingtips, a 24" diameter (1/32?) Invaders saucer, and a "studio scale" Spindrift, which in theory should be 1/16 scale, 40" long overall. 
I have to decide whether I want to try to make fiberglass hulls over the masters or use the masters to make female molds. If I go the female mold route, it would be extra work but I would end up with molds that I could use to make an extra hull or two. If I went that way, I would lay down colored gel coat first (white for the Invaders and G12, silver for the J2s and red/orange and yellow for the others) before laying up the fiber glass. 
A whole lot of ifs involved in this whole thing, actually.
I have no plans on mass producing any of these, no thought of making more than an extra copy or two of each hull if anybody is interested. I don't know exactly how much materials would be and I have heard that there is a lot of work involved, and these would be uncut poly resin fiber glass hulls only, not kits, not anything else, but is there anyone out there who would be interested in an Invaders saucer or a 1/24 Flying Sub hull for about $75 or a 40" Spindrift for maybe $150 or $175? You'd have to be serious scratch builders. I don't expect any interest in the J2s ($100 to $125?) as there's going to be an amazing 18" kit soon, unless you want to fool with scale and install a Moebius or even PL interior in a larger shell?? 
I'm just asking to gauge interest to help me decide which lay up route I should go. Again, not thinking of making more than one or two of these and certainly not before September or October and not at all certain that I'd even make the extras.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I'd be interested in a Spindrift at that scale.


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

Definitely the Invaders and possibly a Spindrift


----------



## mrdean (Aug 11, 1998)

*You bet!*

Invaders and Spindrift for sure!

Maybe the Gemini 12 and Jupiter 2 in 1/24th. That would match the Moebius Chariot and Space Pod kits! 

Could be interesting.:woohoo:

Please make them!!!

Mark Dean


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Okay, that's already more interest than I expected. I'll definitely think about this. Thanks!


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

mrdean said:


> Invaders and Spindrift for sure!
> 
> Maybe the Gemini 12 and Jupiter 2 in 1/24th. That would match the Moebius Chariot and Space Pod kits!
> 
> ...


REMEMBER.....Unless the Spindrift's measurement's are taken off an exsiting casting.................it'll end up, sadly, inaccurate....like Lunar Models Blueprint-- derived mess......WE CAN ONLY HOPE!!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Mark, I've heard that before. Exactly where are they different? I know that there are differences between the full size and the miniatures and possibly even between the miniatures with the domes and the sensor/antenna thingies under the nose, and that the hatch on the miniature was smaller than the hatch on the blueprint and the full sized set, making the smaller hatch only about 5' high, possibly to give the illusion with the miniature that the spaceship was larger than it really was, but can you pinpoint any substantial differences in size or shape between the Fox blues I posted on another thread (which I'm using for the templates as we speak) and the miniatures or the full size set? Love any details you can share. Part of the reason for thinking I'd go with the 1/16 scale is the miniature's small hatch, which would better fit a 1/24 interior, making that a possibility.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

The compound curves of the hull sides, aft of the "intakes", were something Brent Gair struggled with.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm struggling with the whole thing so far. 
The Aug 14 67 Fox blues for the miniature that I have (posted at http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=225365&highlight=spindrift) have contour lines from side, front/back and top/bottom sections, which are a huge help. But how accurate are they? The forward hull seems to be more steeply curved on the full size set (pretty much the only part of the full size set we ever see) though that could be an illusion. There aren't that many pictures of the miniature but from what I've seen, these blues seem a good match. The windows are in the right place and seem the right size, which were problems with the Aurora and Lunar kits. The fwd hull curve seems right. From the few photos I've seen of the Lunar kit, it looks like its got its share of shape problems as well, also the fwd intakes and some of the details, but that is probably unfair to say without actually seeing the kit.
I suspect these blueprints are close enough to make a Spindrift that looks like the Spindrift. If the only way you can tell that it isn't right isn't by eye but by running a contour gauge over it, it'll be close enough for me. Comparing the blueprint to the photo below, the details, the lines, the complex curves, all look pretty good to me.


----------



## Wilkster (Mar 13, 2002)

I would be intersted in an Invaders and the Spindrift.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

The Spindrift hull flare (lifting body contour?) is substantially different between the FX miniature and the full-size set/lunar/Aurora/PL model. The original FX miniature has a constant curve from the back of the bow gills to the drive intakes, never flattening to a straight line. The full size set piece, Lunar/Aurora/PL all have a straight/level skirt just ahead of the hatch to the drive intakes. No attempt at a miniature that I'm aware of has yet captured this noticeable difference in the contours.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

This is the best side view I have of a surviving miniature. Check out the lip from the front of the intake moving forward. The lip, which runs in a straight line to about where the middle of the hatch would be on the other side, also seems to diverge from the windows. This is exactly the opposite of the Aurora kit and no matter how you hold the Aurora kit to examine possible angles, you can't duplicate this effect. Unless the camera was centered on something way to the left of the photo and shot with a very wide angle lens, I can't explain this as a photographic distortion. Possibly the windows were cut crookedly? Possibly the lip flared out much more dramatically than on the bps? In any event, the miniature just doesn't look "right". I don't know what this would look like on a miniature based on the blues and won't until I get the master made and see if any viewing angle can replicate this. And then I'd have to decide whether or not I'd want to replicate something that just doesn't look right to my eye. Love to see a matching shot from the other side. 
Also, any photos I've seen are pretty inconclusive but do hint at a curve along the sides from the intakes to the exhausts, but the exhausts definitely are not as wide as they appear on the bps. I believe Brent Gair tried to capture that shape. What I need is to find a good photo of the rear of the Spindrift (or ideally a top or bottom view, which I've never seen) and try to calculate the exhaust height which we know and calculate the questionable width. That should give an idea of the approximate curvature required. 
Working on the Spindrift, you quickly realize that it's brilliantly designed for screen. It's a 3D forced perspective miniature that for any angle except square on appears much larger than it really is. The way the Planet of the Apes ship appears much larger on Lake Powell. Only when it's out of water do you realize that it can't work, that 2/3 of it is missing. Same with the Spindrift. It looks great until you realize that it can't possibly work either.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

You're right, the Spindrift miniature's aft section also exhibits subtle constant compound curves from every angle viewed. The original at the Sci Fi Museum is quite something to see. It is a beautiful sum of all its various curved surfaces, something that you really notice as you move past it. It's a shame it wasn't "flown" more in the TV show. If you can pull off the Spindrift I'd be down for one.


----------



## MickeyD (Oct 24, 2008)

*Castings*

I'd be interested her in Australia if you are interested in sending that far, but postage may be a large factor.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

The starboard side. Looks the same to me.

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/Spindrift/SpindriftTop.htm


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

I-d go for an invaders saucer


----------



## bil4miller (Jul 30, 1999)

Just for comparo purposes. This a fiberglass hull of a studio scale Spindrift I picked up years on that auction site. It's a Peter Hutton kit and is 38" in length.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Just put my old Aurora Spindrift back on the shelf and noticed for the first time that its passenger windows slant down toward the front. While the windows on that one miniature above seem to slant up toward the front. 
I don't know how many miniatures there were. The one in the attachments so far seems to have a lip that flares out from the curve under the intakes. The one in the attachment below seems to have the straight back edges of the sides behind the intakes and seems to have windows parallel to the forward lip, both matching the blueprint. The Spindrifts probably all came from the same molds but that doesn't mean that the miniatures will have the same shape. Like vacuum form kits, much depends on the trimming of the edges and how the hull sections are joined together. Just a little too much trimming and sanding of either half of the back would mean that what was supposed to be a straight side on the back would become a curved join. The same would be true of the front top and bottom halves. I'll be willing to bet that no two Spindrift miniatures match each other. 
I think I can identify three miniatures now. One has the passenger windows that seem to tilt upwards as they run forward and has a more prominently flared forward lip but no access panels on the top of the hull. A second one seems to have straighter and more parallel lines and two prominent access panels on either side of the top fin (altho that one photo of a miniature I posted above has both the slanting windows and the top hatches. Either that is a distortion of some kind that makes the miniature seem to have the crooked windows in some photos and not in others or that is yet another miniature???). A third has two prominent holes on either side under the nose. What are those holes? They're way too big for a Lydecker rig. Too small for any kind of meaningful intakes. Lights? 
It's becoming very confusing. I'm starting to think that like the Jupiter 2 and Seaview and the variation between miniatures there, even miniatures that you'd have thought came from the same mold, here with subtle variations between miniatures there is no such thing as "accurate", either. 
Welcome to the world of Irwin Allen modeling.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

These models were made to be photographed and discarded,not to be reveared 40 years later.....the "Irwin Allen World" was the "Hollywood World" where people were working for a living.


----------



## JetBeetle (Jun 7, 2009)

I'd be up for a a jupiter and spindrift depending on a pic or two of how they turn out.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Here is a pic of A Copy cast Off of the Hero.



And the real Deal....



...And a Side view of the recast off of the real prop... 



The colors are as elusive as any other subject of this time, (Jupiter Two, Flying Sub, TOS Enterprise),For example, the large Center stripe is actually a Light powder Blue and NOT A GREY OR WHITE..Also notice the placement of the Hatch and the subtle Curves of the Hull that EVERY model since has failed to replicate...

Say what you want about the series, but the design of the ship is timeless


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

There is a wonderful elegance about it - about all the ships that Bill Creber designed. I don't agree with those who say the designs were thrown together without any thought as to how they would work or how practical they were. The designs of the Seaview and G12 especially and the J2 and FS were very carefully crafted to convey an illusion of being possible and of containing the original interiors as well. The Spindrift is an exercise in forced perspective as effective as that of the Time Tunnel. That Mr. Creber didn't have control of what the directors did (how could they have allowed a chase behind the Tunnel computers and around the power towers in the 2nd episode???) and the angles his miniatures were from is unfortunate. 
The thing about the size of the hatch on the miniature is that the Spindrift miniature was built to 1/16 scale. The full sized set was scaled from this I think. The little people ended up being 1/12 scale, tho. The hatch on the set was much larger on the hull to allow the actors to get in and out. Of course, none of this was meant to be studied. Except when we come to make models of these ships, especially if we try to put in interiors, all the contradictions become apparent. 
What most intrigues me about the model in the pictures directly above is way the lip continues to flare out in front of the intakes. That is so definitely not on the blues and possibly (?) not on one of the other miniatures. Definitely not on the Aurora kit or any other representation I've seen. Really all one can do is try to capture everything that the eye can see. I've got those blueprints as a starting point. Once I get the other two quarters laid up and all four quarters together and somehow temporarily joined, then it will be time to look at the subtleties and tweaking till I get something that I think looks "right". If I do pull a couple extra copies, anyone who can put together something like Richard Tesky's FS is certainly capable of adding a 1/4" curve of body putty to the straight side edges of the back hull that (stick to the blues until I actually see something contrary) I'm still thinking of keeping straight. Until I find a top or bottom view of one of the miniatures...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

starseeker said:


> What most intrigues me about the model in the pictures directly above is way the lip continues to flare out in front of the intakes.


I believe this "flare" to be an optical illusion exacerbated by the odd tangent at which the pin-striping runs relative to the edge of the hull. In other words, as seen from above, the hull does not get any wider forward of the side grills.

I've taken quite a few pix of the hero miniature as it appears at the Museum of Sci-Fi in Seattle, and its basic contours appear to conform pretty closely to those of the studio drawings.

EDIT: On second thought, I take it back. 

I still haven't been able to locate my pix, but based on what I've found online the widest part of the hull (when viewed from above) does appear to be well forward of the side grills -- perhaps as far forward as the front passenger windows.

Gotta find those images...


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

From what I can see in BeatlePaul's pics, it looks like the widest point is between the door and the forward passenger window.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Spindrift. I'm not sure how to interpret this at all. Made a couple parallel lines on one of the nearest things I have to an edge on photo. Still there's lots of distortion at work. But the cabin windows, which seem to tilt upwards, are parallel with the only flat part on the hull, the top of the base of the dome. The knuckle (which is what it's called on the blues and what I've been calling the lip, appears to be parallel with the bottom fin (tho that is pretty iffy given the angle of the photo) and we know that the bottom fin is level, too, so despite the pictures, the knuckle seems to be horizontal as well. Which makes sense. That's the way it's supposed to be. Now it's just a matter of figuring out that horizontal flare. Is it real or is it some kind of illusion? This is kind of like determining the shape of a section of the J2 if its viewports were off to the the far right of a photo of only a the section of the saucer. I'm not at all convinced that photo distortion isn't playing havoc with all these complex, compound angles. Barring the discovery (fingers crossed) of a good square shot of the miniature from directly below or above, my only option will be to continue with plastering the thing to the exact shape of the blueprints, placing the windows and hatch, seeing how it looks from various angles, and then if necessary starting to modifying it till it resembles what we see in the photos from the same angles. 

Invaders. Photoshopped the couple decent edge-on pictures of the saucer that I have together and got one good half, flipped that and made it symmetrical, and this is the shape of the Invaders saucer that I come up with. It is very different from the old Aurora kit, which we all knew was inaccurate. How does this look? Does anyone have any info on the shape of the Invaders saucer that I can compare this to?


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

starseeker said:


> Just put my old Aurora Spindrift back on the shelf and noticed for the first time that its passenger windows slant down toward the front. While the windows on that one miniature above seem to slant up toward the front.
> I don't know how many miniatures there were. The one in the attachments so far seems to have a lip that flares out from the curve under the intakes. The one in the attachment below seems to have the straight back edges of the sides behind the intakes and seems to have windows parallel to the forward lip, both matching the blueprint. The Spindrifts probably all came from the same molds but that doesn't mean that the miniatures will have the same shape. Like vacuum form kits, much depends on the trimming of the edges and how the hull sections are joined together. Just a little too much trimming and sanding of either half of the back would mean that what was supposed to be a straight side on the back would become a curved join. The same would be true of the front top and bottom halves. I'll be willing to bet that no two Spindrift miniatures match each other.
> I think I can identify three miniatures now. One has the passenger windows that seem to tilt upwards as they run forward and has a more prominently flared forward lip but no access panels on the top of the hull. A second one seems to have straighter and more parallel lines and two prominent access panels on either side of the top fin (altho that one photo of a miniature I posted above has both the slanting windows and the top hatches. Either that is a distortion of some kind that makes the miniature seem to have the crooked windows in some photos and not in others or that is yet another miniature???). A third has two prominent holes on either side under the nose. What are those holes? They're way too big for a Lydecker rig. Too small for any kind of meaningful intakes. Lights?
> It's becoming very confusing. I'm starting to think that like the Jupiter 2 and Seaview and the variation between miniatures there, even miniatures that you'd have thought came from the same mold, here with subtle variations between miniatures there is no such thing as "accurate", either.
> Welcome to the world of Irwin Allen modeling.


The original studio model does have unusual side edges that slightly flare out, seen from above, and have a definate downward-then upward cant seen from the side that give a false illusion of the passengers windows angling from the horizonal. On the original the bottom fin is parallel to the windows and the dome platform. What's attractive about this is that it creates this organic, "french curve" like appearance to the model's over-all appearance. This and other differences are missing from the original blueprints and ALL other commercial attempts at capturing the evasive lines of this miniature. Only one roughly 3' miniature was used on film. Another very rough cast, made from the original molds, is seen in some photos belonging to model master Greg Jein.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Although I'm all for gathering as much reference data as possible in order to arrive at a well-informed "starting point" for one's studio scale recreation, I'm also a staunch advocate of deviating from absolute fidelity to the source miniature when it serves my (admittedly subjective) “ideal” of what the model should look like -- especially when the FX miniature in question suffered from poor construction to begin with. 

The miniatures produced by the Fox model shop in the mid-to-late 60's are notoriously inconsistent; in some cases they match the blueprints; in many cases they don’t. Sometimes the differences work in the miniature’s favor, if only because the discrepancies are in sync with what we saw on the screen, and as such have become so familiar we can’t imagine them any other way. In the case of the Spindrift FX miniature I find the wonky series of discordant tangents created by the hull in relation to the livery stripe in relation to the passenger window alignment to be aesthetically unacceptable. The overall result, to my eye, looks like a production error, which is probably what it is (after all, if Bill Creber had wanted the stripe, windows, and hull lip to be at geometric odds with one another he would have designed them that way. And promptly gotten fired for being an incompetent designer (which clearly he is not).

It’s really a common sense issue; who wants a model in which the windows appear to be crooked?

Not me.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Obviously this is very early days with the 'drift. All that I'm doing at this stage is filling the space between the ribs with scrap plywood that will be a base for the body filler that will be the actual shape of the model. At this point I'm following the contours on the blueprints as closely as I can. The horizontal contours for the mid section aren't in this photo, as what I wanted to see was if using a 28mm lens and getting reasonably close to the model if I couldn't make the front knuckle seem to flare out the way it does in photos, without it flaring out in reality. And while with this mess of a fish skeleton isn't exactly definitive, if you imagine the knuckle edge, it does seem to continue to flare outwards as it goes forward, the way it does in photos. 
I'll experiment with both photos and with modifying the shape as I begin to layer body putty on. I've exaggerated the flare on plywood pieces for the forward horizontal mid contour so I can try both shapes.
I totally agree. The bottom of the hull is horizontal. The top of dome base is horizontal. The knuckle is horizontal. The floor inside is horizontal. The windows HAVE to be horizontal, too.
Now, don't laugh. It's just a start.


----------



## mrdean (Aug 11, 1998)

starseeker said:


> Now, don't laugh. It's just a start.


I am not laughing! How about a coke can for scale?:woohoo:

Mark Dean


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Hi, as an owner of one of the Fox blueprints myself: a major difference between the full size and hero is the length of the ship. At 52 feet, the full size includes room for the hatch to fully retract whereas the hero does not: it would run into the nearest passenger window. Also, the pilot's cockpit in the full size is square, where the hero assumes a foreshortened, rectangular cockpit (similar to the early design used by Aurora for its kit). 

I know the other difference between my bp and Starseekers is that mine has a dome up top with dotted lines suggesting a future change, where his has the egg shaped taper in place.

BTW, I'm in for one.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

All that was holding the Aurora kit's antennia on was dust, I think. Well, it's got to be down there somewhere...
Still missing the last angled rear bulkhead. That adds about one more inch.


----------



## mrdean (Aug 11, 1998)

Fred Barr has done a Technical Manual and Blueprints for the Spindrift. I do not know how accurate he is but it is kinda cool!

Ebay has them all of the time.


----------



## Tony Hardy (Oct 23, 2002)

I would be very, very interested in a Spindrift hull, plus the others you mentioned. Cost is not a problem.


----------



## mrdean (Aug 11, 1998)

Any news?

Mark Dean


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Very little to report here. Spending most of my free time clearing storm damage and re-landscaping what was once a shady yard into what is now a total sun yard. Not even time to lurk here much. Sigh. 
Finished the master for the 24" G12. Working very slowly on the FS and 'Drift. My first priority is to get the stupid treads for my Chariot cast, tho. This should have been done months ago. Time is becoming a real issue, as I only have till Hallowe'en at the latest before it gets too cold outside to work on toxic, smelly things. 
I've been trying to figure out the shape of the Invaders saucer. From averaging every photo (screen grab) that I have or can make, this is what I've come up with so far, for a 24" saucer. I haven't compared this to the Aurora kit yet so I don't know if they are at all close. I don't know what that raised ridge is there dividing the main hull from the upper hull but there is definitely a serious bulge there. Below is a PS'ed grab from The Innocent. The expending foot on the bottom of the landing gear is my own idea. 1) if it's spring loaded, it will hold the retracted landing gear in place. 2) it makes no sense at all that the entire weight of the saucer would be borne by ten little cylinders. They would just dig into the sandy ground that the aliens seemed to prefer landing on. Some kind of flat, weight bearing pads seem in order. 
So, can anyone help me with this saucer plan? The shape? The bulge between the hull sections? Anything? Thanks!


----------



## mrdean (Aug 11, 1998)

starseeker said:


> Very little to report here. Spending most of my free time clearing storm damage and re-landscaping what was once a shady yard into what is now a total sun yard.


I am sorry to hear about the storm damage. Glad you are still in one piece!!

Mark Dean


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> ...Finished the master for the 24" G12...


Love to see it. 


starseeker said:


> ...My first priority is to get the stupid treads for my Chariot cast, tho...


What material will your treads be?


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

*Invaders Saucer*

Have you seen "The Saucer Fleet" book yet, they have a section on the Invaders and their profile looks to be pretty accurate...


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

starseeker said:


> Very little to report here. Spending most of my free time clearing storm damage and re-landscaping what was once a shady yard into what is now a total sun yard. Not even time to lurk here much. Sigh.
> Finished the master for the 24" G12. Working very slowly on the FS and 'Drift. My first priority is to get the stupid treads for my Chariot cast, tho. This should have been done months ago. Time is becoming a real issue, as I only have till Hallowe'en at the latest before it gets too cold outside to work on toxic, smelly things.
> I've been trying to figure out the shape of the Invaders saucer. From averaging every photo (screen grab) that I have or can make, this is what I've come up with so far, for a 24" saucer. I haven't compared this to the Aurora kit yet so I don't know if they are at all close. I don't know what that raised ridge is there dividing the main hull from the upper hull but there is definitely a serious bulge there. Below is a PS'ed grab from The Innocent. The expending foot on the bottom of the landing gear is my own idea. 1) if it's spring loaded, it will hold the retracted landing gear in place. 2) it makes no sense at all that the entire weight of the saucer would be borne by ten little cylinders. They would just dig into the sandy ground that the aliens seemed to prefer landing on. Some kind of flat, weight bearing pads seem in order.
> So, can anyone help me with this saucer plan? The shape? The bulge between the hull sections? Anything? Thanks!


On the actual filming miniature it appears that the side wall on the upper portion of the saucer are not verticle but slightly canted inward. The Aurora model does not look like the filming miniature to my eyes.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

toyroy said:


> Love to see it.
> 
> What material will your treads be?


I'll post a photo as soon as I get the fusion core roughed up for it. This is my G12 with the Very shallow lower hull and while it looks right on paper, in 3D w/o the core it doesn't look right at all. The hull masters are featureless shapes. I've been trying to figure out how to mold the viewports and various hatch recesses into the various versions and how I'd get the hulls out of the molds with such undercuts and what I think I'll try is placing removable negatives for the viewports and hatches into the molds themselves and glassing around them. Then they can be pulled out of the molds with the hulls and then pulled out of the hulls. ??
The treads will be my first attempt at metal casting. I made a centrifuge a while ago for spinnning and I just picked up some low temp metal RTV. $75/one kg!??


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Mark Dorais said:


> On the actual filming miniature it appears that the side wall on the upper portion of the saucer are not verticle but slightly canted inward. The Aurora model does not look like the filming miniature to my eyes.


That is a tough call. On some photos the sides look vertical. On others they appear canted. They only used about 2 different fx shots the whole series and blue'd those two shots over various backgrounds over and over again. I can't tell if the out of vertical is an effect of camera angle or lens distortion or if it's real. In any event, the saucer doers appear that way in the majority of shots. From the "other" angle, it appears to be vertical (attach below). 
On "The Saucer" the inside walls are definitely inward angled but the view out the viewport shows the marked difference between the inward walls and what might be a vertical exterior.


----------



## Argonaut (Feb 11, 2007)

Getting back to the original question, I'd go for a Spindrift hull in a heartbeat.
The Invaders saucer would be #2


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Chuck Eds said:


> Have you seen "The Saucer Fleet" book yet, they have a section on the Invaders and their profile looks to be pretty accurate...


As nice as the selections I've seen of it online are, I don't think they had any more information to go on than any of us do: studio drawings on-line and in magazines, publicity photos, and the amazing 'net. They just put them together real pretty and published them in a book. 

Mark: I couldn't get your comment out of my mind because in almost all shots, those sides do appear to be canted inwards toward the top. My Saturday Night Fright Night show last night was another Invaders episode, since I'm in that zone right now. And when I was finished, I remembered the episode "Dark Outpost" that I'd been looking at to try to figure out a floor plan (tho it doesn't work because somehow Vincent seems to be on a one level saucer?) and I realized that I'd never looked for an exterior view from that episode. Eureka! - a different angle of the saucer, from a higher perspective. 
The picture I attached just previously was taken from an episode that showed the saucer through a filter that made the image swim. Maybe THAT photo is distorted. It was the one near edge on to the upper level view I had but it's the only one that also shows those parallel sides.
Below is Dark Outpost view over top of my drawing. That shape is just much more pleasing and, as you say, feels "right". I'm going to revise the sides accordingly (and the top, which I was always going to curve - the drawing to this point was primarily to see if I could get the proportions right, and again they match the view in "Outpost" so I'm happy with the diameter of the top compared to the diameter of the bottom). 
Thanks!!!

Now what the heck is that band around the waist?

As an aside, note the size of Vincent leaving the saucer. Vincent once said the saucer was about sixty feet in diameter. In 1/32 a 24" saucer would be 64', so I figure I'm close enough. The Aurora/Monogram kit is approx 1/110 scale, not the 1/72 always quoted.

Edit: and of course that's the way Vincent saw it, too, in what I'm assuming is one of the art director's sketches, as shown in the pilot.


----------



## GordonMitchell (Feb 12, 2009)

Hi,I would be interested in the Invaders and the Spindrift,shipping would be to Scotland,also have a friend who might be interested in both also but will talk to him first before committing,good luck and look forward to these,Gordon:thumbsup:


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

toyroy said:


> Love to see it.


Sigh. I don't know when I'll get time to work on that fusion core so here is an in progress picture from a couple weeks ago, just before (cough hack) fine sanding. This is the very shallow G12 lower hull that the 48" miniature might have/seems to have had. As I said, it looks terrible in the picture but it matches the drawing propped up to the left exactly and I think the profile in that drawing looks great. So I really want to see this with the core and see if I like it. 
These are two separate parts, an upper and a lower hull, mounted on two routered 3/4" 24" diameter disks, keyed together and shaped together so that the finished hulls should match each other near exactly as I can make them match. 
As soon as I prime and sand and prime and sand and wax and make the mold, I'll build deeper hulls and even the Invaders saucer over these masters to save time and effort and materials. 
Very plain. I'll add hatches and windows into the mold.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> ...These are two separate parts, an upper and a lower hull, mounted on two routered 3/4" 24" diameter disks, keyed together and shaped together so that the finished hulls should match each other near exactly as I can make them match...


Thank you, for the insight into your scratchbuilding techniques. :thumbsup:


----------



## maucutt (May 22, 2008)

*Put me down for one!*

Two studio scale Spindrift's, and numerous smaller scale models-none of them accurate. It's been on my (re)scratch build list for some time however I have too many other projects before it. I would LOVE an accurate Spindrift, put me down too! 

www.mikesmodels.mysite.com


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Deleted my Invaders saucer plan from above and adding this revised version based on the upper hull shape from Dark Outpost. Getting closer, I think. At least, I'm liking it a lot more. The position of those spinning lights around the circumference is not easy to nail down.


----------



## thepixelpusher (Jan 31, 2009)

starseeker said:


> I've been trying to figure out the shape of the Invaders saucer...I don't know what that raised ridge is there dividing the main hull from the upper hull but there is definitely a serious bulge there...So, can anyone help me with this saucer plan? The shape? The bulge between the hull sections? Anything? Thanks!


There is only one bulge line between top and bottom. I have a pretty clear screenshot (saucer in the clouds) from the DVD's of one of the best/clear shots on this thread here: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?p=2944745#post2944745

Are you going to make a model/casting of parts?

Tom


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

It would be good if you could scan one of the original miniatures.But the next best thing is to take photos of every angle and detail and print 1 to 1.
The original studio model seems to be to small for the scale of 1/12 for 40 inch.It would be more like 1/16 as quoted by you.The Polar light and Lunar kits were scaled at 48 feet for a full scaler and that fits an interior alot better.But you'd have to go to about 52 feet to fit the rear engine compartment.
I don't know why it was made smaller.Maybe 1/16 was an earlier size for the little people or was it to big to carry for the giants actors.Or Fox didn't care.


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

If you decide on 48 inch or bigger put me down for one.I will definetley buy for sure.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Toyroy, getting really desperate to get things done so I took a few minutes this am and did some work on the 'drift. This is the same thing I'm doing with the Jupiters. First, the various profiles cut out reasonably carefully and placed on a flat surface (again 3/4" ply), making sure they're all straight and square. The I fill the space between the profiles with scrap wood. It looks awful but that doesn't matter. No one will ever see it anyway. In the case of the first photo below, that's one quarter of the 'drift. Then, as in the second photo, a first coat of jointing compound. It's really a pretty thin coat because of all the bits of wood filling gaps underneath. Maybe 1/4" in most places, tho it will get to maybe an inch in a few spots. The thick parts will take longer to dry and will shrink and crack but this is the first of probably 2 more coats before I give it a rough sanding. Then I'll make a new set of profiles out of poster board and use them as templates for a couple more coats and sandings until I get the shape right. In the case of the Spindrift, I think I'm going to make the finished window area a part of this master and remove the casting from the mold from the rear. There are no undercuts going that direction and I think that would be a lot easier than trying to build and fit a window area into the front of the hull after.
Note along the "knuckle" toward the rear. There's a penciled line that represents the blueprint curve of the hull. That is where I'm starting the hull for now. If I can't make it look like any of the photos of the miniature by messing with focal length and distance, then I'll go to the outside of the wooden piece, which is how the knuckle seems to flare in photos of the miniature.
This part of it, the making of the masters and the making of the molds, is pretty easy. The fiberglassing will be a learning experience. I have to admit I'm starting to panic at how quickly I'm running out of time for this working outdoors season. 
But this is the first really exciting part. After having a chewed up mess of wood sitting around for months, getting a 3d surface across it and suddenly seeing a familiar shape finally coming to life.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

So Starseeker, what sort of creative stuff do you do during your cold weather season?


----------



## jhagerty (Jun 19, 2003)

starseeker said:


> As nice as the selections I've seen of it online are, I don't think they had any more information to go on than any of us do: studio drawings on-line and in magazines, publicity photos, and the amazing 'net. They just put them together real pretty and published them in a book.


Oy, we've been found out!

Actually, you are correct. There was precious little to go on regarding that saucer. We probably could have done a better job on the data drawing if we'd had the DVD's available (they hit the market just as the book went to the printer.

- Jack


----------



## hlemuss (May 20, 2009)

Hi guys
I already have a 3D model of the Flying Saucer of "The Invaders" in 3DS Max that I'm going to port to Blender. My idea is to make this model and the Spindrift in 3D in my computer with all the interiors (as possible) and as acurate as they can be. For the rest I will use my sense of balance for each model. I will publish pictures of the models and maybe later a walkthroug of them. I hope to get some feedback from you as this could end in good blueprints for other modelers.
Greetings

P. S.: starseeker, I hope everything is fine after the storm. I used to live in Orlando, Florida when we got the three hurricanes. so I understand you. Great job with all your models.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

what will the spindrift cost ?


----------



## hlemuss (May 20, 2009)

*3D Invaders UFO model*

Hi guys

I started working on a 3D model of the UFO from "The invaders". This pictures show the progress so far (still a lot to do). What I'm going to try is to make a nice model that looks pretty much like what you see in the show and playing with some measures and scales try to fit a two level inside. There are some problems around the landing legs that I have to correct to get to this goal. I will post more renders with the details and what I'm taking in account to make the changes while keeping the overall shape and look like the original. Any comments are welcome.


----------



## jclark (Mar 26, 2010)

id be very interested in a spindrift at that scale, id been thinking of doing a hull myself, you could save me a bunch of initial work. please keep me updated on your progress because i definitly want one


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

count me in for a spindrift for sure !


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm going to get them done THIS summer, if it kills me!


----------



## mrdean (Aug 11, 1998)

starseeker said:


> I'm going to get them done THIS summer, if it kills me!


Do not go that far! But Thanks for the update!!

I am also still interested! 

Mark Dean


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Seen this lately?

http://www.irwinallengallery.com/giants/spindrift/hero/


----------



## Borg403 (Dec 31, 2009)

I am also interested in a Spindrift. Put me down for one!


----------



## Patron Zero (Feb 6, 2010)

*Saucer Fan*

Love to hear more about the saucer model from The Invaders, mind just my opinion but such being in 1/35 scale would be fine, 1/48 would work too.

With fingers crossed here, adapting the saucer design to a kid-sized backyard playhouse for my (second generation) nephews, the boy's father loves the idea of looking out to see the craft 'hovering' in their backyard.


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Did I ever mention that I was interested in a Spindrift? As long as it's an improvement over Aurora/PL or even LM, I've wanted one since 1969!


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Any updates?

I could probably be talked into an Invaders saucer.


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

I just got a studio-scale fiberglass & resin kit of the Spindrift from Thermalized Plastics (he re-tooled it!) and can honestly say, bigger IS better! 
It may take me 6 months to scratch-build and light an interior for it, but the effort will definatey be well worth it.


----------



## Argonaut (Feb 11, 2007)

Does the re -tooled Thermalized Plastics Spindrift better reflect the
original prop hero? I saw it on their website and was considering it
but some of the contours looked a little "off"


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

It better reflects the best elements of both the studio set and the hero miniature, and the measurements closely match those of the hero miniature in Brisfx's photos in the following link:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=240664&page=2

If you like the Spindrift and/or LOTG, I recommend this kit.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

PING,

Any news? Please?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Archeological thread dig: 
I'm still working on these. Only 12 weeks left until snow will probably be on the ground here again but I'm trying to get these ready for molds. The FS and Spindrift aren't ready for priming yet, the Spindrift really not ready yet. This is my third try at getting that nose correct. As in blueprint nose correct, not horrible deformed miniature correct. I can't blame the miniature makers for the mess, tho', as this thing is insanely TOUGH to do. 
These are the masters for the 24" Jupiter upper hull, lower hull, Gemini 12 lower hull, a Gemini 12 lower hull for the moebius kit, a 16" Saucer and a 24" Saucer. Almost have the 24" Saucer bottom master completed. The landing gear is almost as difficult as the 'Drift nose.


----------



## Calamus (Jun 8, 2011)

Looking forward to seeing these, love the shape and size of the invaders ship, the kit was just too small


----------



## WOI (Jun 28, 2012)

Not unless you have the hull for the Invaders Flying Saucer at 1/48 scale
size?


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Invaders for sure !


----------



## WOI (Jun 28, 2012)

Good,because I am working on a 1/48 scale version of it.The accurate
version of course,and that can be very useful to me in the near future.


----------



## Josellas (May 20, 2004)

I'd be interested in an Invaders saucer.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

Now thats what I am wanting !

what scale is that ?........is that a scratchbuild ?


----------



## Josellas (May 20, 2004)

That is a Lunar Models kit.The balance of the photos of the build is on Steve Iverson's site.The interior is made from the patterns provided by Lunar.
Glad you liked it.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

After a certain point, threads need to be closed. Like this 5 year old one.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Why?

There is some progress on this. Slow, not much, but some.

I always check out this thread (and some other old ones) when 
I see an update.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry, antimatter, but trust me, no-one wishes this thread was finished two or three years ago more than me. It's been a lot of slow, slow work so far. 
For the last month I've been trying to get the Spindrift's nose modeled. Ot's a bit frustrating and time-consuming as there are three alternatives. The blueprint nose was pretty faithfully captured by the Aurora kit. The upper ledge in particular, which the blueprint shows at an ever increasing angle until at the edges it is in virtually the same plane as the front face. Check the Aurora kit and you'll see what I mean.
Then there is the miniature. It's just a mess. But on the miniature, the upper ledge is angles a little more forward all the way around the front face. Not a great deal toward the edges, as you can see in the photo, as you can see the ribs from almost straight above. 
And then there is the full size set. Here the construction crew just went in relatively fat planes of sheet plywood or masonite. The upper and lower edges are angled forward much more than the miniature. 
We never saw the miniature clearly on-screen. The Spindrift we do see nose details of is almost always the full-size set. 
So I'm wondering which do Spindrift fans prefer? Miniature shaped nose or full-size-set shaped nose?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

This is my fourth try over the last two years at the Spindrift nose. It's still pretty rough but I think it's coming close to capturing the look of the full scale 'Drift, as compared to the photo above. The lower lip still needs a little reshaping in the outside corner. But I think once it's sanded, it'll be almost there.


----------



## Josellas (May 20, 2004)

Wow Starseeker, nice approach to your pattern work. I know it is always a trying time to compromise modeling work and configuration of models. I have had to deal with that so many times for the jobs I have had to do.
Further, I came on this discussing late but am glad to see what most of you guys had posted. It was an eye opener for me even coming on in the middle of the movie so to speak.
As for past pattern work that I did for the FS interior, I had to compromise on what was on FOX prints to what was actually seen on screen. Hard decisions to make like what I am sure you are having to contend with.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Finally! - inching closer to finishing the 1/16 Spindrift nose. The first try, two years or so ago, was not good. The second try last year was a little better but still off. Tried to fix it a few months ago and it still wasn't working. Made a solid foam carving of it and wrapped that in styrene. It looked pretty darn good, at last. Opened it up, got rid of the foam, and started work on what was left. 

The whole thing was based on the Fox blueprints of the miniature. The upper and lower "lips" on the Fox blueprints don't match the miniature very closely. The miniature sure doesn't match the full sized set. Since details of the miniature weren't seen on screen but the set was, and since there were no other opinions on the matter, I've chosen to try to replicate the set. It would probably be easy enough to modify this version into something very close to the miniature: just use a heat gun on it for a while, let the details soften and droop, and you've pretty much got it. 

After about three weeks of working on it almost every day, I've got it all roughly assembled. Very roughly. Here's where it is so far. The upper and lower edges still need to be trimmed way back, and the ribs all have to come off and everything has to be sanded and then fine fitted, but it's all symmetrical front to back and side to side. Everything on the front is parallel left to right - the angle of the camera created some distortion. Of everything I've ever tried to build, this has easily been the most challenging. Once this is finished, it gets embedded in the hull, same as the Flying Sub master. And then the endless sanding begins.


----------



## nautilusnut (Jul 9, 2008)

I think you've made the right decision to go with the set design. A few years ago when they made the 50th anniversary model of Disney's Nautilus they modeled above the waterline as the full-size set, and below as the miniature.

It looks great! Just like you remember it!


----------

