# Question on the Moebius Flying Sub accessory kit



## gareee (Jan 1, 1970)

Can you remove the wheels or robot arms, and close the hatches, or do you pretty much have to display it one way or another?

I know that the wheels and arm cannot fold up into the ship because of Irwin Allen spacial physics, but it would be nice to have the hatches open and close, and be able to pop on the landing gear or the arm.

Its not a huge deal not to have them, but with such a nice kit, making it more "complete" would be nice.


----------



## machgo (Feb 10, 2010)

I have the kit, and I think with some work you might be able to accomplish what you're asking, but it won't be easy. You'll have to fab some kind of hinge for the panels that you will cut off the main fuselage, and figure out how to mount them without being permanently attached to the gear, as the accessory set calls for.

Search for Flying Sub accessory set on this forum. There should be pics I posted last year of the parts of the kit, if you don't already have the kit, that is. The pics might give you an idea of what you're up against.

I was hoping to actually convert the kit into working landing gear, but that is a MAJOR undertaking, and the Flying Sub is down the list of projects for now.

Good luck!


----------



## gareee (Jan 1, 1970)

No I never picked it up when released, because I wasn't sure I really wanted extras that were hardly ever seen. I wish there were sub forums here so ther ecould be some stickied best info threads for specific kits.

Hunting down great threads with killer tips for older kits is getting hard to do now. I even had issues finding the fixes recommended for the front end fit for the recently released Galactica.

I know it would mean more work for the mods, but I hate to see this valuable information vanish, and the search feature is a bit iffy here on some topics.

There are small brass hinges you can buy that would probably work on the hatches, unless another part gets in the way of them, and you could always glue those instead of using the screws on them, though that would add additional nice detailing.

The main issue I see would be securing the hatches closed, or adding secure pegs (if needed) so the landing gear or the arm would stay put without falling out.

I built a fairly accurate digital flying sub a few years ago, and good luck with the retracting landing gear. They actually have to fit up inside the interior of the sub itself, ruining some of the interior, unless Moebius scaled them down somehow.


----------



## miniature sun (May 1, 2005)

I can't see the doors operating using a traditional knuckle-type hinge....my guess would be that they would be on two arms rather like modern fighter aircraft that throw the door out clear of the aperture.


----------



## machgo (Feb 10, 2010)

^^ agreed. A simple hinge I don't think will do it. I have the kit stashed, so I'm going mostly from memory--my thoughts on "working" gear involved having the wheel rotate and the arms telescope. I may have been considering raising the roof of the wells for the wheels to fit. I do know for sure the panels mount onto the arms, so miniature sun's recommendation about a knuckle hinge is right on.

Of course you are correct about Irwin Allen designs--no way the gear could retract with the engines and what-nots inside the sub.

Here's my post with pics: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=283165

Another thing to consider is working out making the gear stuff removable, making the panel to strut mount non-permanent, then mounting the panels onto the sub with magnets--no hinge needed--maybe the best of both worlds.

Check out this post also if you haven't already. Seeing this made me join the boards and buy the kit! http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=263560


----------



## gareee (Jan 1, 1970)

Thats a killer build! Thanks!


----------



## miniature sun (May 1, 2005)

machgo said:


> Check out this post also if you haven't already. Seeing this made me join the boards and buy the kit!


I'm flattered, thanks :thumbsup:

Although I'm also embarressed for not having finished it yet....


----------



## gareee (Jan 1, 1970)

I actually totally forgot you were even working on the fs anymore, because all the diorama scratchbuilt parts stuck in my head.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

The gear did fully retract with the filming model- there is just no way to do it with any type of interior.
I really like the concept of the FS landing gear and I understand why it is designed the was it is, but it just looks silly to me.


----------



## cmckenn (Jan 8, 2012)

Just a couple thoughts here. Forgetting for the moment that there is no way to maneuver the FS in flight as it has no rudders or ailerons, I'm wondering if you'd even have to have traditional landing gear on it ?! You could just have it dock in a special built hanger much like the Navy does with their hovercraft. Seriously considering just filling in the landing gear hatches on the underside.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

How does one go about cutting the lower hatches free, without dealing with a hack-job? I'd like to open just one to have 9 volt battery and on/off switch access. I'd love to have the lights without wires hanging out. I thought about using the inside hallway, and having the back hatch door be the battery storage, but I have the hall lit and decaled. I want to have it open-able, to see the cool details. 

I want that thing to sit cleanly on its stand, and to be self-contained, with a sealed and glued upper and lower hull!


----------



## miniature sun (May 1, 2005)

The hatches are fairly easy to cut free by scoring around the recessed lines with a new blade a few times.
Shouldn't be too difficult to fabricate a styrene 'holster' for the battery to sit inside the wheel well....you could attach the hatch either with velcro tape or maybe a small magnet on each corner...


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

cmckenn said:


> Forgetting for the moment that there is no way to maneuver the FS in flight as it has no rudders or ailerons...


If it had spoilers, it wouldn't need rudders or ailerons.

The visible panel lines for spoilers could be very small so we wouldn't even recognize the presence of spoilers (or we could engrave small panel lines to represent the retracted spoilers).

Because spoilers allow roll control without adverse yaw, there would be no need for rudders in their normal function to correct adverse yaw. For yaw compensation during other maneuvers (like a crosswind landing) we could imagine the use of differential thrust (not the most efficient way to do things but it would work).

I think it's also logical to assume there is some degree of vectored thrust since that would accomodate pitch control and could also control yaw.

Obviously, this is entirely speculation and rationalization. But just because we can't see ailerons and rudders doesn't mean the ship can't be controlled.


----------

