# Jupiter 2 Landing Gear



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

The landing gear is one of the neatest things about the Jupiter 2, so it should have a thread of its own. Some folks have asked about how to adapt their build to allow the gear to be changed easily from deployed, to retracted. Others are making functional landing gear.

Let me start off by asking: of those building functional gear, how many _care_ about making the strut move, as on screen?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well, that's one of those big questions, isn't it? I mean, it's built wrong to be functional (upside down), right?

I contend that IA would have preferred there be no strut, and the legs look more like the C-57D of Forbidden Planet or the rear stairway of a 727 (which was fairly new in service thus sexy), but the practical realities of the 'full size' set precluded that as an option.

but let's work with what we see. If the strut were flipped, so it COULD retract as it slid back in its (assumed) track, would that eliminate some of the space issues?

Just thoughts.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Steve H said:


> ...I contend that IA would have preferred there be no strut...but the practical realities of the 'full size' set precluded that as an option...


If he didn't want the struts, they wouldn't be there. What makes you think Hollywood couldn't figure a way to supported the mock-up without the struts?


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

thread closed


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

falcondesigns said:


> thread closed


I don't think Dave moderates this forum, so it might have a chance!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Dave, I'm scared......Daisy....Daisy....


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

My 24" J2 weighs alonst exactrly 10 lbs. The landing gear is .040 styrene with a pivot of 1/8" styrene rod. All the landing gear does is keep the footpad in position. Virtually all the weight is borne by the strut. The strut is essential. I should do a moment of inertia calculation on it to be precise. 
TR: the hero had a mess of wires and springs and pulleys inside. But I read that it was operated from the outside by said strings, "like a puppet". I've been trying to think of a way of making those doors slide up and to the side w/o all those fiddly bit. Getting the gear to go up and down is easy. Some kind of threaded rod will do the trick. But what if the threaded rod also engaged a circle for a brief time. The circle could have an incline around its bottom circumferance. Travel along the incline would raise or lower a captive attachment to the door. A stop point on at the ends of the incline would slide the door out of the way. The threaded rod would engage and disengage the circle at the beginning (or end) of raising the landing gear. You could make all motions work from one central source. 
I don't know if I've described this terribly clearly. I don't know if my sketch makes it any clearer.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

toyroy said:


> If he didn't want the struts, they wouldn't be there. What makes you think Hollywood couldn't figure a way to supported the mock-up without the struts?


I think it could be, but the problem is making that conform within the existing G XII/J2 design constraints. 

As has been mentioned before, the strut seems to be the actual main load bearing element. Removing the strut puts all the load on that narrow ring around the fusion core, which also affects the stability.

Now, the 'full size' set didn't need to worry about hinges or retraction devices, but it DID have to worry about actors walking from the front viewport to the stairs. I suspect the strut beefed up the center of gravity from shifting from actor motion and made the whole thing more stable.

On the filming model, you might not need to worry about the landing gear sans struts being fully load bearing because it might well be supported by the wires, but you do still have the issue of needing a more elegant mechanism to move the legs. Maybe a large 'quarter moon' toothed piece and a gear capped motor..I'm probably using totally incorrect terms here but I can SEE it in my head, so. 

It's just my thoughts and speculation.


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

Does anyone have photographs of their working gear.. and not just sketches?


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Steve H said:


> ...As has been mentioned before, the strut seems to be the actual main load bearing element. Removing the strut puts all the load on that narrow ring around the fusion core, which also affects the stability...


I'll call. We don't know what makes the ship _fly_, let alone what materials the hull and landing gear are made of. Sure, without the struts, the entire load would be borne by the gear legs. What information about the strength of materials used on the Jupiter 2 are you holding back from us?

And Starseeker: what information about the design of the landing gear hingeing have you been holding back from us? 

Steve, if I may ask, what evidence do you have that Irwin Allen did not want struts on the landing gear?


----------



## Jim C (May 3, 2006)

I'm thinking that the "upside down cylinder on the ram jack" are the struts like an aircraft. They would actually compress and absorb the shock of the landing. The Hyd. Sys. that actually raises and lowers the gear would be a deferent system altogether. The jacks would be up in the gear well and wouldn't necessarely be seen. Something to think about.

Jim


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

I noticed today, that in Derilict the foot pads wobbled back and forth when coming down, in Blast off the legs never went all the way up, looks like they got stuck as the saucer left.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> ...I read that (the hero landing gear) was operated from the outside by said strings, "like a puppet"...


Y3a suggested that, as a project. I just don't know, but puppet wires moving relative to the model sounds like something difficult to hide from the camera.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

toyroy said:


> I'll call. We don't know what makes the ship _fly_, let alone what materials the hull and landing gear are made of. Sure, without the struts, the entire load would be borne by the gear legs. What information about the strength of materials used on the Jupiter 2 are you holding back from us?
> 
> And Starseeker: what information about the design of the landing gear hingeing have you been holding back from us?
> 
> Steve, if I may ask, what evidence do you have that Irwin Allen did not want struts on the landing gear?


Well, we're discussing the real world filming model and the 'full size' set piece, and that is the thrust of my train of thought, what logic I may have and all that. If we want to get into speculation and 'how did it work if it was real' that's a whole 'nother bag of fish. 

Real world? The Jupiter 2 setpiece was probably steel pipe and plywood, plus the mechanicals for the fusion core lighting (a part which, as has been said before, was detached and used for other things in the show), whatever spots were placed inside to light the actors, and whatever minor set dressing stuff was used to make the window area somewhat match the main set on the soundstage.

And as to IA and the strut/no strut idea, I just look at the design of the stairway and the leg and all, and it sure says 727 to me. I have no FACTS mind, but I look at other productions before and after and he seemed to like very 'clean' designs. Elegant solutions. That strut on the landing gear smacks of brute force and practical necessity. 

We won't discuss the Space Pod at this point because there's a whole bunch of reasons that looked the way it did


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> ...I've been trying to think of a way of making those doors slide up and to the side...Getting the gear to go up and down is easy. Some kind of threaded rod will do the trick. But what if the threaded rod also engaged a circle for a brief time. The circle could have an incline around its bottom circumferance. Travel along the incline would raise or lower a captive attachment to the door. A stop point on at the ends of the incline would slide the door out of the way. The threaded rod would engage and disengage the circle at the beginning (or end) of raising the landing gear. You could make all motions work from one central source...


Starseeker,
I'm having trouble picturing the orientation of your mechanism components. Would you please provide another view, showing how your "circle" relates to the threaded rod? Does the circle engage the threaded rod, or a traveler which moves along the rod, as it turns?


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

m jamieson said:


> Does anyone have photographs of their working gear.. and not just sketches?


Check out Y3a's and Chuck Ed's photo albums.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Jim C said:


> I'm thinking that the "upside down cylinder on the ram jack" are the struts like an aircraft. They would actually compress and absorb the shock of the landing. The Hyd. Sys. that actually raises and lowers the gear would be a deferent system altogether. The jacks would be up in the gear well and wouldn't necessarely be seen. Something to think about.


Yes, I think that's the idea. :thumbsup:


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

woof359 said:


> ...in Blast off the legs never went all the way up, looks like they got stuck as the saucer left.


Yes, there's lots of weird stuff in that sequence. Notice later the fusion core with only one stopped light- and it's dangling by a thread!


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

I kinda liked the struts. but with out seeing both who knows.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

toyroy said:


> Y3a suggested that, as a project. I just don't know, but puppet wires moving relative to the model sounds like something difficult to hide from the camera.


Actually you see strings and wires in many of the effects shots if you look at them now as still pictures. 

I never noticed in this shot of the full size mock up the radar unit that projects from one of the roof hatches

http://www.flickr.com/photos/modern_fred/2110246226/


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

djnick66 said:


> ...I never noticed in this shot of the full size mock up the radar unit that projects from one of the roof hatches.


Yeah, and the spotlight effect of the fusion core.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

djnick66 said:


> I never noticed in this shot of the full size mock up the radar unit that projects from one of the roof hatches


That is just another example of their careless with proportions. The stuff is almost as high as a human being. So, how could it fit inside the ship without push the entire elevator to the lower deck?

OK. Then we were kids... but not stupid ones (I guess).:hat:


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Steve H said:


> ...as to IA and the strut/no strut idea, I just look at the design of the stairway and the leg and all, and it sure says 727 to me...I look at other productions before and after and he seemed to like very 'clean' designs. Elegant solutions. That strut on the landing gear smacks of brute force and practical necessity.


I'm focused in this thread on the J2 gear as it was, but plastic models give you a lot of "what if" options.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

GeeZ...Sorry I'm late to the party. Great Idea ToyRoy!!

OK, here's my take. The rams/struts will work 'upside down' and the 'real' Jupiter 2 would have a pipe/hose combo that would connect to the rams cylinder end above the foot. No biggy. The sliding footpad doors is an elegant solution to the fact that the footpad can't pivot enough to fit flush with bottom of the leg. Again no biggy. I can buy it. This hydraulic system also seems to imply that the Jupiter 2 Fusion Core system repels from other objects in a manner similar to a helicoptor, not a system that positions the ship with enormous force and no 'play' - which is verified by the slow wobbling and pitching of the Jupiter 2 as it hovered inside the Derelict. 

OK so to the model side of things. My 2 footers landing gear started life as the cast parts, but after I piled the 6 servos 3 battery packs and such I knew the legs wouldn't be strong enough. I re-enforced the legs with brass strips and using a welding jig, I silver soldered brass tube at one end, on a step up to get it to the height I needed to match the pivot point at the back of the leg. I also put a control arm at a 90 degree angle to the brass strip. this was glued to the topside of the leg bottom. 



I cut down the oversize feet so they would fit in the clearances of the area of the footpad door. I used solder to imitate the ribs on the legs and hide the seam. I used brass rod and tube for my gear. The rams on my model are for show as I move the legs from the back. I used 3 micro servos in an intermediate link configuration to slide the footpad doors open. As I have a floor with holes cut for gear wells and access holes to get to some parts The area I had for the sliding footpad doors I used a rail and glued a plastic door beveled on the side toward the way it slides makes it work the same as it looks on TV but methods are different. 



My model has brackets in thin plywood and maple blocks that support the lower level. The upper hull is not attached to the lower one, it just sits on alignment pins. 3 at the gear and 3 where the steel wire comes through the hull for it's overhead support. I have brass tube inside the holes drilled into the maple blocks inside the model. they sit flush with the upper hull with the tubes sticking up into the holes in the hull. I thread the wire thru the tube and make a small loop and crimp it. The loop goes around a screw head on the side of the same maple block this supports the model for any effects I may want to videotape - which is why I make these toys. I have separate system that spin the core lights and "V" and the 3 sliding hatches on the top are functional and the largest turns on the motor, lights and I have 2 settings. One for live/video effects, and a brighter faster setting for high speed photography. I still need to build a 16 foot 4x4 boom and head so I can have some real fun. 

In operation the model sits on the end of the boom with about 6 feet of wire between the model and the boom head. The boom head needs to swivel and rotate and the boom needs to be piloted at the control end at about 6 feet up to allow for swing and counterweight stuff going on . Lets say you are doing the derelict shot. The boom is off to the left behind the camera. you turn on the bright settings and RC equiptment and get out of the shot, you slowly move the model into the light while slightly pitching and rolling the model while it sits about a foot off the floor. slow it to a stop and CUT! Next shot from down on floor looking up at bottom of saucer. ROLL! slowly slide the pad doors open, count to 2 and lower gear and slowly set model on floor.....fade out...CUT! Next, with model still going, pick it up and rotate it so main viewport is facing directly at camera. set down.....ROLL! Slowly raise model while retracting legs and allowing doors to slide back into place....CUT! Zoom in camera to viewport , get set and continue..ROLL! slowly rotate model so window passes through scene and continue to move model out of light. CUT!!! turn off lights and motor, turn of RC. rewind and watch. I will try to get some video of my Lunar Models mechanics in operation to post here or Utoob or somesuch. I wish I had used a jackshaft on that model but I just couldn't find all the parts or even a machinist to make a part or two. So my model weights a bunch. Too much to trust it to monofiliment. You get to paint the wires on mine.... I use a magic marker to make the wire black but for light blue you'll need to paint 'em. My Jupiter 2 uses flat sheet plastic sheet for the windows and small brass "I"-Beam stock for the window frame so it looks like the Derelict era Jupiter 2. The photos are still in my album, feel free to look! even a teeny bit of video of the core lighting test.



VIDEO of fusion core light test
http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/LM_Jupiter_2.mov


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Y3a said:


> ...Sorry I'm late to the party...


Glad you could make it!

How do you get the strut deployment motion right, on your models?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

and just to stir the pot, I have another thought.

The landing gear on the filming model may not have been designed to retract, or better to say, retract seamlessly.

The main engineering may have been to drop the gear, because that's all you need to do. To show the gear retracting, simply reverse the film. I seem to recall a few shots of the fusion core 'spinning' the wrong way.

It's a common concept in effects filming. Like turning a model upside down as well as the camera and pulling something up out of it, instead of the more complicated dropping it down. All that matters is how it looks on film.

Again, just a thought exercise.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

On another thread, they're talking about sound chips. I think a sound chip of the gear opening and retracting would be a lot of fun.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

OK...The Hero in operation...

Had a small push in push out switch to power on the self powered effects (Lights and mechanical fusion core). Gear was powered from the 3 support wires and had a plus minus and ground. sliding hatches were for access to mechanics on hero. Gear was wire/pulley system. The gear was designed to lower under tension, with the footpad doors moving out of the way first, followed by the legs dropping to a preset endpoint. The model, when set on the gear tightens up the pullys and wires and it makes the model appear to rest down a bit on the gear. There are shots of the Jupiter 2 lifting off and smoke is clearly seen going in a normal way while the J2 lifts off and retracts the gear upwards. This verifies the gear works both directions. as the model took a beating during is filming career the gear lowered a little more jerky each time after the end of year 2. By year 3 they were landing it on the Fusion core and that explains the missing fins. I always wanted t see all the original Gemini 12/J2 crash scene at the pinnicles. All the behind the scenes. did they trash a 4 footer in the process? How long was the run from one end to the other 1000 feet? How in the...did they do that shot. I know they used one model and multiple cameras in different positions. They put the outside clips out of order to make you think otherwise, but go back and look.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Fair enough on the retraction issue. I would assume that over time, under the exposure of the studio lights and the day to day handling the hull might flex a little, mounts inside might work loose a tad, and thus you get the 'not quite all the way up' of that one episode.

I've always wondered how you string a Lydecker rig. If you have holes (and probaby tubes so the wires don't slice your model like soft cheese), I would assume you have to thread the wires thru, then run them down to the other end and tie them off. or something. And while it did have to be as light as possible, it also had to have SOME mass to it or it wouldn't slide down the wires convincingly. I tend to agree that flying the 10 foot ship down a Lydecker rig probably didn't happen.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

I have an idea they used pulley wheels and that the models support wires didn't slide thru the model, but rolled thru. This is less friction, and allows for a more crane like operation not just a taught wire the model slid down. I think the Crash was done with one big cable thru the model on wheels, and another cable attached to the front and back which works like a clothes line with the model being pulled back n forth on a winch. At least they could slow it down. You'll be amazed how much drag a tube has when trying to slide a 40 pound model.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Y3a said:


> I have an idea they used pulley wheels and that the models support wires didn't slide thru the model, but rolled thru. This is less friction, and allows for a more crane like operation not just a taught wire the model slid down. I think the Crash was done with one big cable thru the model on wheels, and another cable attached to the front and back which works like a clothes line with the model being pulled back n forth on a winch. At least they could slow it down. You'll be amazed how much drag a tube has when trying to slide a 40 pound model.


Well they didn't have to use the hero. They could've used a much more lightly-built model, where the friction would work in their favor.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Well even my 1 foot model, with nothing inside was too heavy for a 300 foot run on steel Control line airplane wire running through a brass tube glued to a straight edge on a piece of 1/4 inch ply to prevent deflection. I ended up putting little brass pully wheels at the ends of the tube for less friction.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Hmm. Is it possible the lines are attached to the model?


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

I think so.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

If I'm not making a mistake, I remember have read somewhere, in one of the various threads that poped up in this forum after the announcement of the Moebius J2, that the backs of the 3 legs would fit and match exactily the hull surface around the landing gears openings.

Instead, the sequence of images atached shows that the back of each leg doesn't do that, but lies over the opening edges, being a bit larger than the landing gear bay opening.

However, the pad door aparenttly do it, making then two movements: one of them sliding lateraly and the other moving up/down against the hull, matching the hull surface.

Am I correct?


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Fernando Mureb said:


> ...the back of each leg...lies over the opening edges, being a bit larger than the landing gear bay opening.
> 
> ...the pad door aparenttly (makes) two movements: one of them sliding lateraly and the other moving up/down against the hull, matching the hull surface.
> 
> Am I correct?


I agree. Later in the same episode("The Derelict") you can better see how the pad doors move, after the ship lifts off.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Mechanically, the pad doors are intact on the Hero! 

In the Jupiter 2 Autopsy the doors are slid back n forth on the rail. 



the door itself is the cut-out/footpad door itself with a button sort of projection sticking out from the center. It may have a square shaped post to keep the door aligned. the bracket it attaches to slides on the rail which is glued or otherwise attached to the hull. The bracket has a slot where the button slips in so the door can be slid sideways on the rail and up and down because of the play built into the gap between the button and the door. 


And heres a look up the gear well to see what it looked like from the other side...





Heres a look at the back of the gear leg so you can start to see how stuff was rigged up:



Using a photoshopped leg, I placed it in the model to see the clearances.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

So, compared to the hulls surfaces we have:

3 legs (raised)
space pod bay door (depressed)
shields of the auxiliary control window (depressed)
chariot ramp (matching hull?)
2 port holes (depressed)
air lock door (depressed)
3 hatches on top hull (depressed)
not to mention the main window shields and the several retrorockets "holes".

Apparently the J2 hull lines were not as clean as I thought. Of course, nothing to be compared to the extremely complicated exteriors of all the "hollywood spaceships" after the 2001 - Discovery advent.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Fernando Mureb said:


> ...Apparently the J2 hull lines were not as clean as I thought...


There are precedents on the show for building the ship pretty much any way you want it.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

YEAH!! As Long as ............ (L0L)

The choice - IF you are doing something with the gear is :
Working or just moveable? 
powered or puppet?

The "Hull lines" do seem to have changed from the elegant saucer in Derelict, to the piece of crap in "Junkyard in Space" slamming down on the core... after the pod was added. I believe they used the same upper part but fattened the lower level between years 2 and 3. This may have been at the same time repairs might have been needed to the hull after it dropped off the boom and shattered the original mechanical core. from then on, the chaser from the pod dropper was used on both models.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

I saw a PL J2 lower hull builted in flying position (I don't remember where) with the landing gears backs raised. Man, sometimes I don't know what is better: accuracy or just impressions. After all, excepting for the rare close scenes of the landing legs lowering, how many times could you note these raised details?


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

As a kid, I thought the gear backs closed flush with the hull, and I thought that was so cool. But then, I also thought the bottoms of the landing pads were flush with the hull bottom. Later on, watching the pad doors move, I much prefer that action to my earlier (mis?)-impression. But I still prefer the gear backs to close flush with the hull.

I just prefer the ship to have clean, simple lines. But I also like the gear to work as it is seen onscreen. That involves the gear leg motion, the strut motion, and the pad and pad door motions.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

falcondesigns said:


> thread closed


Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

The proper gear will need to be made before you can get an idea of how you can get it to work. I think a few here are working on some.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

djnick66 said:


> http://www.flickr.com/photos/modern_fred/2110246226/


GREAT screen caps! Thanks for the link!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> GREAT screen caps! Thanks for the link!!:thumbsup:


The half scale ship is a hoot.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Antimatter said:


> The proper gear will need to be made before you can get an idea of how you can get it to work. I think a few here are working on some.


WRONG!!!!

You need BOTH correctly constructed gear and the rest of the stuff too (gear wells, area for mechanics if any are to be constructed.

You need to settle on a method to raise and lower the gear before you make the gear legs so you'll have an idea on whats needed for construction of the legs.


----------



## Jim C (May 3, 2006)

toyroy said:


> The landing gear is one of the neatest things about the Jupiter 2, so it should have a thread of its own. Some folks have asked about how to adapt their build to allow the gear to be changed easily from deployed, to retracted. Others are making functional landing gear.
> 
> Let me start off by asking: of those building functional gear, how many _care_ about making the strut move, as on screen?


I plan on making mine functional as if it were a real ship. I'll try to duplicate the beauty of the show but my intent is to build something that could be the real deal in the near future. I'm really intriged by Y3a's work. I defenitly need to pic his brain on some of this stuff.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Jim C said:


> I'm really intriged by Y3a's work. I defenitly need to pic his brain on some of this stuff.


Well Ax away!:wave: I can discuss the mechanical side of something as simple as the Jupiter 2 gear all day long! I hit the site about 10-20 times a day depending on how bizzy I get. If you've read my posts you'll know I'm a purist with the Jupiter 2(s). All 3 have appeal. I like the 4 footer best, then the small "toss around" version, and lastly the Set/Full size mock-up. They are a different diameter than the models so I group those as one version (straight sided, different gear, non-spinning bubble, small non-finned fusion core) The models are different ships, with the 4 footer being THE Jupiter 2, and the small model IS the Gemini 12. So what if a piece of reflective tape was put where the lower level viewport was to complete the illusion. It's visible as the lil Jupiter 2 comes into the Derelict, and one of the wires brushes the Derelicts door segment and you see the model roll a bit. 

I 'think' the lil Jupiter 2's fusion core spins the oppositeway from the 4 footer. Hmmmmm.........

Does anyone have photos of what kind of boom supported the 4 foot Hero? I read in 2 different places that it was a 50 foot mike boom, usually bolted to the stage floor. This would have had an operating/moveable head.


----------



## shopper (Dec 6, 2003)

Does anyone have photos of what kind of boom supported the 4 foot Hero? I read in 2 different places that it was a 50 foot mike boom, usually bolted to the stage floor. This would have had an operating/moveable head.[/QUOTE]

I believe the unit was referred to as a "Lydecker Rig" after Howard Lydecker. Both Howard and his brother Theodore were instrumental in many TV and film special effects that utilized different rigs to control minitures long before motion control systems was developed. "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", "Fantastic Voyage" and other films utilized their systems. I remember seeing the rig used for LIS somewhere but can't recall where??? Maybe a web search for Lydecker Rig may be productive.

I too have labored trying to build a "working" J-2 with articulated landing gear. My SFM 24" J-2 is under construction, but I gave up on the articulated landing gear idea. When completed, it will have a lighted flight deck, motorized spinner in the top bubble, electonic fusion core, lit flight consoles, etc...

Bill


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I don't think the "Lydecker rig" was used for the landing shots--the Lydecker's created a method that allowed models to slide along, and be controlled by, wires for HORIZONTAL flight. That doesn't mean they couldn't have worked on the landing shots but they would much more likely be involved in things like the Jupiter 2 crash scene, the flights of the Flying Sub, etc. where vehicles were moving horizontally across the screen.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

jbond said:


> I don't think the "Lydecker rig" was used for the landing shots--the Lydecker's created a method that allowed models to slide along, and be controlled by, wires for HORIZONTAL flight. That doesn't mean they couldn't have worked on the landing shots but they would much more likely be involved in things like the Jupiter 2 crash scene, the flights of the Flying Sub, etc. where vehicles were moving horizontally across the screen.


What he said.

Probably the last major use of a Lydecker rig was the movie '1941', used for many of the flying shots over Los Angeles .

I believe the Lydeckers came up with the rig while working on Serials such as Commando Cody and the like.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

ouch !!
http://cgi.ebay.com/Irwin-Allen-Tel...M?hash=item3a51efe9dc&_trksid=p3286.m63.l1177


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Woof
Is there any picture you can't find?


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

back in 98 when we got our first computer i took a wild chance and serched, heck i never thought any one else in the universe even saw the show LIS, man was i surprised. over the years I learned a lot of info and where to look for it. The Enterprise is cool but it never has come close to the fly saucer they used in LIS, it wasnt alien, it was ours !!!


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

woof359 said:


> ouch !!
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Irwin-Allen-Tel...M?hash=item3a51efe9dc&_trksid=p3286.m63.l1177


Did any of the Marx brothers show up on any Irwin Allen TV series?


----------



## geminibuildups (Apr 22, 2005)

Groucho was a very good friend of Irwin Allen and was one of the financial backers of Lost in Space. None of the Marx Brothers appeared in the TV series ---- but Groucho, Harpo and Chico appeared in Irwin Allen's 1957 film, The Story Of Mankind.

Geminibuildups
www.geminibuildupstudios.com


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

jbond said:


> ...the Lydecker's created a method that allowed models to slide along, and be controlled by, wires for HORIZONTAL flight...


For some reason, I always pictured their models sliding on the control lines. Now, I think both lines were _attached_ to the models. The feed reels would have had adjustable friction brakes, and the take-up reels would've been cranked by hand or motor, as needed for the particular shot.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

woof359 said:


> ouch !!
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Irwin-Allen-Tel...M?hash=item3a51efe9dc&_trksid=p3286.m63.l1177



It's available from Amazon.co.uk for a few pounds less.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Irwin-Allen...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252698197&sr=1-3

As is the case of all outside of the US Amazon sites, postage is gonna hurt.

Main reason why I put the link in is to give folks the ISBN and such so if you have a preferred book search service you can take a shot there.

Too rich for my blood, but it looks interesting.


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

*Lydecker Rig*

L.B. Abbott wrote a book years ago that was published through the American Cinematographer's Society, no doubt he detailed many of the techniques he employed throughout the 60's & 70's.

I tried finding it once and found some references to it, but couldn't find the book itself. I'm sure it's out there somewhere...


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Never fear, Woof is here... and will find your book soon.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Chuck Eds said:


> L.B. Abbott wrote a book years ago that was published through the American Cinematographer's Society, no doubt he detailed many of the techniques he employed throughout the 60's & 70's.
> 
> I tried finding it once and found some references to it, but couldn't find the book itself. I'm sure it's out there somewhere...


Chuck -

Amazon.com is your friend...

http://www.amazon.com/Special-Effects-Wire-Rubber-Styles/dp/0935578064/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252710623&sr=8-1

I'm pretty sure that's the one you're looking for.

Bryan


----------



## shopper (Dec 6, 2003)

Chuck Eds said:


> L.B. Abbott wrote a book years ago that was published through the American Cinematographer's Society, no doubt he detailed many of the techniques he employed throughout the 60's & 70's.
> 
> I tried finding it once and found some references to it, but couldn't find the book itself. I'm sure it's out there somewhere...


Check your local Barnes and Noble......I will let you know this weekend.

Bill
(Shopper)


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

I know theres lots of irwin Info at the UCLA library, just not sure how much is LIS related.


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

*Sfx*



Gemini1999 said:


> Chuck -
> 
> Amazon.com is your friend...
> 
> ...


Amazon rocks! I recently signed up to get the Saucer Fleet book so I'll be checking that out. Thanks!

Just got an email from them about a Spacecraft modeling book that looks good too...


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

I have a copy of L.B.Abbotts book, which I bought hoping to read a lot about Lost in Space. There is about 3 paragraphs...... Cool Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea stuff and all. His name went on any film that used 2nd Unit product, he didn't do day to day effects work. He had a super staff that WAS. Many came from Republic Pictures - Most notably the Lydecker Brothers. Their biggest accomplishment was figuring out the camera settings when doing high speed photography of models outside. Getting the focus and light levels correct for high speed film photography is what makes or breaks the illusion. The Lydeckers flying rigs were all experiments, and each point was improved over months until they could control a model as they moved it across the frame without the wires being visible in the film process. They had multiple solutions to all sorts of rigging/flying requirements. In 1941 they had a P-40 fly under the wires of several blocks of telephone poles in LA. The P-40 also did a roll if I remember.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Y3a said:


> I have a copy of L.B.Abbotts book...


I thought they might be talking about the same book. Thanks, for sparing everyone the expense and disappointment. :thumbsup:


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Steve H said:


> What he said.
> 
> Probably the last major use of a Lydecker rig was the movie '1941', used for many of the flying shots over Los Angeles .
> 
> I believe the Lydeckers came up with the rig while working on Serials such as Commando Cody and the like.


Actually, I thought that I'd remembered a mention of the Lydecker rig being used for "The Right Stuff". I went on IMDB.com and looked in the trivia section for the film and it does mention the Lydecker brothers and how the film's VFX team opted for using that style of VFX versus producing them in a lab.

Bryan


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

OK, we have stopped discussing the landing gear. WHY?? 

I would like to discus the flight characteristics of the Jupiter 2... As I understand it:

The fusion core generates gravity waves with the "Thompson Projectors" which are the flat pane sections that light up on the fusion core. The fins keep the projectors from interfering with each other. The Deutronium reactor generates the electricity for all the Jupiter 2 systems and a by-product of the reaction is used to create the gravity waves that 'push' instead of attract. The saucer begins the take-off sequence with a fully powered up reactor, and the fusion core just fed a trickle of power. The voltage is increased which triggers a brighter glow from the projector plates and as the reaction subsides it is increased in the projector plate next to it which gives the rotation appearance. They use 95 percent of full power on the bottom plates, which pushes the Jupiter 2 up into the air and increasing the power the ship goes faster and faster through the atmosphere. the side plates keep the ship on an exact trajectory to escape the atmosphere. the Jupiter 2's avionics slowly pitch the Jupiter 2 into a forward position with the main viewport pointing in the direction of travel instead of the bubble. after the Jupiter 2 goes past the 125,000 mile range the side plates will be doing the work as the fusion core can switch to full power. There is a safety interlock that all the passengers must be in the freezy tubes to protect them from the gravity waves which have been known to cause 'mental problems.' The Jupiter 2s systems didn't know about the stowaway so after takeoff Smith was exposed to full power for almost 6 hours before he woke up. The core works as pull from the front and push from the back when in full power mode, so it can go about 15 percent faster than light (Hyperspeed). 

The way the propulsion system works impacts how you make your landing gear. because at lower speeds and near hover, the Jupiter 2 acts a lot like a helicopter.

Now..Lets talk Bubble. I want to put a spinning "V" in the model with a full interior and without gear. Using a very thin steel wire I can spin it and it will hardly be noticable. I can spin the V shape and have a thin clear sheet of plastic about 1/6" under the bubble with a teeny hole for that steel wire. it would go thru the top of the Astrogator bubble and thru the center of the lil Jupiter saucer inside. This is a good thing. As the V spins, so will the lil Jupiter 2 inside the astrogator. the gearbox and such can fit under the floor.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Ok.... Speaking about L.B.Abbott's book. What would happen if I re-type the stuff on Lost in space in a post here???? For info purposes only.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Gemini1999 said:


> Actually, I thought that I'd remembered a mention of the Lydecker rig being used for "The Right Stuff". I went on IMDB.com and looked in the trivia section for the film and it does mention the Lydecker brothers and how the film's VFX team opted for using that style of VFX versus producing them in a lab.
> 
> Bryan


I know they went 'old school' on The Right Stuff (one of my fave movies, but I'm a space nut  ) but mostly it was taking models and dropping them from a great height to show out-of-control spins and tumbles 

But I think there was some wire work too. Had to be.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

I heard the Flying Saucer book was mostly illistrations and not many photos, So for the price they were asking I ppassed on it


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Y3a said:


> OK, we have stopped discussing the landing gear. WHY??


I spent part of the day going through "Lost in Space Forever" looking for the landing shot from "The Ghost Planet". I'd like to post it, to illustrate the motion of the various gear parts during deployment. If I can't find it on LiSF, I'll ask someone with the episode DVD.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Y3a said:


> Ok.... Speaking about L.B.Abbott's book. What would happen if I re-type the stuff on Lost in space in a post here???? For info purposes only.


I sent you an e-mail.


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

*Saucer Fleet*



woof359 said:


> I heard the Flying Saucer book was mostly illistrations and not many photos, So for the price they were asking I ppassed on it


There are lots of illustrations, and very good ones at that. There are a good number of photos and lots of behind the scenes info. The LIS section is quite extensive for both the JII & the GXII.

I got mine @ Amazon.com for under $40...


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

I have the book. It's a must have to all SF fan and worth the price.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

but the does the Flying saucer book have any photos we havn't seen before? I hav eseen some really good fan drawings but i prefer studio photographs.


----------



## Jim C (May 3, 2006)

I'll try to get those samples of the j2 sound out to those who are interested next week. Flying this week , be back home next week. 

Jim


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

*Saucer Fleet*



woof359 said:


> but the does the Flying saucer book have any photos we havn't seen before? I hav eseen some really good fan drawings but i prefer studio photographs.


There aren't too many photos throughout the book that I hadn't seen, but the commentary was very good, these guys did a lot of research. The LIS section is pretty extensive between the JII & GXII.

I'm with Fernando in that it's a must have! Shop around & I'm sure you'll find one at a reasonable price...


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

*Ghost Planet landing*

Thanks to Teslabe, here is the landing footage from "The Ghost Planet". I adjusted the brightness and contrast to best display the landing gear and its action. There is no sound on the clip.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/1f7gi6

Personally, I find it most useful to step through the clip frame-wise in a video editor. I use VirtualDub, which is freeware.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Again, from Teslabe's footage: a framewise normalization, focusing on the gear leg deployment frames. This illustrates the motion of the struts and pads.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/vfq8pq


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

My Browsers don't know how to handle the file. It says it's not a movie file...


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Y3a said:


> My Browsers don't know how to handle the file. It says it's not a movie file...


To check the server, I've downloaded both of the videos, and they run fine on my machine. They're both MPEG-2 files, without sound. Windows Media Player will run either of them, although I recommend using a video editor(such as VirtualDub) to step through them frame-by-frame.

Perhaps re-naming the extension from _.mpeg_ to _.m2v_ might help.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

I get this with every trick I try. 




Can you make it 'less PC" and more Mac?


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

fisrt clip is much better, you can see the foot doors sliding and the saucer desending.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

try this link.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)




----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

THANKS, it worked. The Derelict has a close look at hte pad doors pulling back into the hull before sliding, and then dropping back into place at the end.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

woof359 said:


> fisrt clip is much better, you can see the foot doors sliding and the saucer desending.


Woof, the first clip is just the un-edited shot from _The Ghost Planet_. All I did was adjust the brightness and contrast to bring out the landing gear.

On the second clip, I manually centered the ship on each of 108 frames. I did it to show the gear leg deployment, especially the motion of the struts and pads.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

its good work, never seen the legs coming down so good before> especialy like the fact you can see the foot doors sliding open, I bet i watched it and studied both the landing gear and fusion core light sequence, many thanks.


----------



## hawaii442001 (May 27, 2008)

*mis information*

it is sad to say, but there is much mis information about the minature jupiter 2's out there. much of what happen on the series was determined by budget. there were only 2 four foot j2's that you ever saw, the 10 foot was in the derelect[that was the only time it was ever used, and for you non beleivers it is easy to prove] and the rest was the 4 ft or the 12 inch one. for some reason everyone thinks there were 2 fusion core's for the j2, but the reality is there was only one, and the so-called experts on LIS were not even around or were like me just a little kid at the time. the people who knew the truth are either not around or to old to remember.


----------



## hawaii442001 (May 27, 2008)

*js mis info*

it is sad to say, but there is much mis information about the minature jupiter 2's out there. much of what happen on the series was determined by budget. there were only 2 four foot j2's that you ever saw, the 10 foot was in the derelect[that was the only time it was ever used, and for you non beleivers it is easy to prove] and the rest was the 4 ft or the 12 inch one. for some reason everyone thinks there were 2 fusion core's for the j2, but the reality is there was only one, and the so-called experts on LIS were not even around or were like me just a little kid at the time. the people who knew the truth are either not around or to old to remember.


----------



## oshkosh619 (Feb 24, 2009)

hawaii442001 said:


> it is sad to say, but there is much mis information about the minature jupiter 2's out there. much of what happen on the series was determined by budget. there were only 2 four foot j2's that you ever saw, the 10 foot was in the derelect[that was the only time it was ever used, and for you non beleivers it is easy to prove] and the rest was the 4 ft or the 12 inch one. for some reason everyone thinks there were 2 fusion core's for the j2, but the reality is there was only one, and the so-called experts on LIS were not even around or were like me just a little kid at the time. the people who knew the truth are either not around or to old to remember.


Not to doubt you, but would you care to please quantify your claims as well as name the sources of your "facts" before debunking others' "facts"? Everything you say may be 100% true, but those are pretty broad statements, especially when you point out you were a "little kid" at the time LIS was in production. You clearly state that *"the people who knew the truth are either not around or to (sic) old to remember".* If this is the case, how are you in possession of the "actual" facts? We honestly would like to know, especially if it changes some of the data we have previously taken to be gospel.

Thanks!

Mike


----------



## Jim C (May 3, 2006)

*Misiformation....*



hawaii442001 said:


> it is sad to say, but there is much mis information about the minature jupiter 2's out there. much of what happen on the series was determined by budget. there were only 2 four foot j2's that you ever saw, the 10 foot was in the derelect[that was the only time it was ever used, and for you non beleivers it is easy to prove] and the rest was the 4 ft or the 12 inch one. for some reason everyone thinks there were 2 fusion core's for the j2, but the reality is there was only one, and the so-called experts on LIS were not even around or were like me just a little kid at the time. the people who knew the truth are either not around or to old to remember.[/QUO
> 
> 
> 10' J2........Derelect? That would mean that the Derelect minature would have to be around 15' at the opening!!! pretty big minature for 15 sec clip... Money must have really been flowing.... I've seen pictures of the 10' Jupiter and I dought this is the case.... could be wrong though..
> ...


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

The 10 footer was only ever intended to be a set piece with the Cyclops and Chariot hero. It was too heavy and large for the Derelict shots. 

The 4 footer was used for the Derelict shots and the location was the used Fantastic Voyage brain set. 
The same set used with the Proteus model. We know it's size and the size of things on that set. 
compare it to what you saw in Derelict.

The fusion core started out as a 6 light mechanical spinning contraption that also spun the "V" in the bubble. the model was dropped between years 2-3 and much was damaged. 
The gear was always sticky or not used at all, and the fusion core was shared between the Pod Dropper and the Hero after that. 
The new core was a movie house style chaser where the light bulbs no longer rotated. 
The first few shots of the Jupiter 2 always showed the 6 light mechanical core, which photos show have moving lights inside. A fact not known by the new guy.

I know this from studying the SPFX clips and still photos and comparing that with what the Hero looks like inside. 
Unless you can show otherwise, this 'so called expert' ain't buying anything a 3 poster might contribute. 

We have discussed the life of the hero for several hundred pages of details and such back n forth over the years.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

this is suppose to be the 10 footer, its suppose to be in the hands of a private collector. its never been stated wheather its been restored or not, i didnt take the picture so I wasnt there to measure this but i read it was used for the crash seen and a shot with the Cyclops.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Brain-overloading-from-too-many-SAEs! :tongue:


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

you know I seen all the post's, read all the web pages, seen a ton of Jupes pictures that all cood be the same prop, made a list of all the details, who you gonna belive???
all I know is i liked the idea of a flying saucer instead of a rocket ship, thought the legs were cool and thrwoing in a tank tread land/sea vehicle put me over the edge, I was hooked on the show.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

woof359 said:


> . . . [A]ll I know is i liked the idea of a flying saucer instead of a rocket ship, thought the legs were cool and throwing in a tank tread land/sea vehicle put me over the edge, I was hooked on the show.


Same here :thumbsup:


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Here are two shots from _The Derelict_, again courtesy of Teslabe. These are mainly to show the motion of the pad doors, and are enhanced and framed accordingly. 

http://www.sendspace.com/file/1dbcu4

http://www.sendspace.com/file/w8aqyf


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

I wonder how many takes it took for them to get it to look so effortless, thanks Toy, it looks like the pad door drop in place after sliding closed.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Probably 2-3 practice attempts then 1 or 2 filming shots.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

you know you see them old movies where the ceiling fan is barly turning, I was told there spining fast, its just the camera speed makes it look like there spinning slow, i wonder if the camera make the fusion light speed differant than what it realy was?


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

woof359 said:


> you know you see them old movies where the ceiling fan is barly turning, I was told there spining fast, its just the camera speed makes it look like there spinning slow, i wonder if the camera make the fusion light speed differant than what it realy was?


I remember stagecoach wheels appearing to roll backwards.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

The Pod Dropper and 3rd season Jupiter 2 used the chaser fusion core and it looks much faster than the mechanical spinner. It all depends on the film speed too. Much J2 stuff was filmed at 96 to 116 FPS. The Pyro clips are all 180 FPS according to the clapper info.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Ron Gross & I have announced our replacement landing gear for the upcoming J2 kit. It replicates the gear of the 4' hero miniature. It is designed to be static.

Here's more information:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=266881


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Yaaaay!!!!!


----------



## Jim C (May 3, 2006)

Anybody,
I need an acurate edge of the hull. I've been experimenting with a 3d program and need an edge on drawing of the j2, Moebius if possible. I'm trying to a couple of looks that might help some of us get a handle on what we accually can do or think we can do with a visual of the modle. Where is the floor going to be, ie. on center of ream or lower. I've got a lot of drawings from you guys from this thread but need to have one I can use that is the most correct. any help will get the ball rolling.

jim


----------

