# Flying Sub Control Surfaces?



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Does anyone know of the existance of Rudders or other such control surfaces used for flight. No such thing I remember in the show. Blueprints, ...suggested
in studio drawings?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

No. None. Zilch.


----------



## steve123 (Feb 9, 2009)

What happens is if they want to go left, the crew leans left, if they want to go right....

Steve


----------



## falcon49xxxx (Aug 4, 2008)

I suspect it was a yaw and pitch vanes inside the engine outlets,but thats just a guess on my part.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

falcon49xxx said:


> I suspect it was a yaw and pitch vanes inside the engine outlets,but thats just a guess on my part.


You expect believable engineering on a vehicle from an Irwin Allen show? The Flying Sub makes absolutely no sense to begin with. You could just as well surmise that it was powered by leprechaun magic and steered by telepathy.

That's what makes all these fictional vehicles FUN!


----------



## steve123 (Feb 9, 2009)

And invisible Mermaids shove it out of the water.....

Nelson had a deal with them.


Steve


----------



## falcon49xxxx (Aug 4, 2008)

Hey,At least I took a shot at it...........


----------



## steve123 (Feb 9, 2009)

Just teasing, maybe little reaction control jets, or a great big Gyroscope.

I like the leaning thing the best though....

Steve


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

:thumbsup:Alex, I like your explaination. You think like an engineer. It's a wrap....close this one Dave !


----------



## junglelord (Mar 6, 2007)

Here is Big Daves FS RC Pumpjet, fully functional left and right steering.
http://s181686668.onlinehome.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php5?t=8546&start=0


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

The "Blade Runner" Spinners also lack control surfaces, but no one seems to have a credibility issue with their ability to fly. 

Re: the FS: I've always "imagined" those twin intake discs as serving a duel purpose. In addition to admitting and expelling ballast they appear to me capable of housing some sort of vectored thrust/ vertical lift system, a la the Spinner.

Anyway, that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Carson Dyle said:


> The "Blade Runner" Spinners also lack control surfaces, but no one seems to have a credibility issue with their ability to fly.
> 
> Re: the FS: I've always "imagined" those twin intake discs as serving a duel purpose. In addition to admitting and expelling ballast they appear to me capable of housing some sort of vectored thrust/ vertical lift system, a la the Spinner.
> 
> Anyway, that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.


So, you're thinking the FS is more an Aerodyne...that's interesting. I think there was a concept painting that implied vertical lift, at least for landing in the water. Lord knows that would be better, safer than the '200 kph nosedive' we saw, yes? 

But that goes to the whole thing of 'real' Vs. dramatic. It's much more visually exciting to show the Flying Sub SCREAMING for the surface of the sea and SPLASH...it's not a crash, it's traveling on underwater!

One thing that's bothered me watching my VTTBOTS DVDs, the episodes seem to lack production number codes. I'm sure they're placed in the sets in 'airdate' order but you can tell pretty clearly airdate has little to do with production date. So I wonder which of the second season episodes was the first one filmed (as opposed to first one shown) in the understanding of just what the Flying Sub was all about. 

Another thing, one of the early episodes had them doing a pre-flight checklist and they call out a check for 'rockets'..it would make sense for there to be a 'boost phase' to help break out, maybe that explains the little 'wiggle' the FS gives when it's lifting


----------



## falcon49xxxx (Aug 4, 2008)

I concur Doctor..............


----------



## Dave Metzner (Jan 1, 1970)

I didn't go back and search, but I'm sure that we've plowed this ground already at least once before on this forum.
To begin -Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and most of Irwin Allen's TV series are science fantasy not science fiction. 
Very few of the Irwin Allen "hero" vehicles that I've seen exhibit much thought to practical operating design. 

The little wiggle that you see when Flying Sub takes off is probably due to the Lydecker rig that really makes the Flying Sub fly...
I believe that the reality is that the Flying Sub is typical Irwin Allen technology... It has no real grounding in any practical technologies.
Flying Sub is simply a vehicle for plot expansion on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea - a vehicle to get Crane and Nelson off Seaview for adventures beyond the confines of the Control Room!
I'm sure that nobody involved in the design of Flying sub spent 30 seconds worrying about how the vehicle would actually be controlled in flight. They figured that Mr Lydecker would handle that!

Flying Sub does not work from a technology standpoint on many levels - watertight doors and hatches that open in the wrong direction, a propulsion system that doesn't fit into the confines of the vessel (where'd you put that #@%##nuclear reactor!) - no room for sufficient ballast to make it submerge _ landing gear and grappling claw that doesn't really fir into the vessel - a glass floor with lights under it!? (what is this, a Disco!?) - Water jets, air breating jets, rockets, nuclear propulsion- all of these or none - you choose!
So why are we worried about practical flight controls?

Dave


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

PM Moderator said:


> Flying Sub is simply a vehicle for plot expansion on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea - a vehicle to get Crane and Nelson off Seaview for adventures beyond the confines of the Control Room!
> Dave


_*Exactly!*_ 

That said, as a figure modeler - I love the extent to which some sci-fi modelers get into this stuff and the incredible details some of you guys come up with. And I ain't making fun. I think you're all _insane,_ but I ain't making fun.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Most model builders I've seen are rather anal.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

It's a typical Irwin Allen vehicle. It's not meant to make sense whatsoever, so long as it looks cool. And it does. Even as a kid, I always thought that the angle of those huge windows smashing into the ocean as it re entered was a recipe for disaster as it wouldn't slip into the water, it would hit it like a wall!


----------



## steve123 (Feb 9, 2009)

What do all current Military Aircraft that have thrust vectoring have in common? _Control surfaces_. The RC pumpjet can steer (yaw) left and right by using the throttles on the two pumjets . You can veer an aircraft but you can't really turn it.

So, even with thrust vectoring, you still need control surfaces 

It's gotta be the leaning..
I lean left sub go left, I lean right sub go right.
(Read this in Homer Simpson's voice)

Steve


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

The SR71 Blackbird, while flying past Mach 2 could be 'steered' by just moving fuel around in the various tanks. The "GIB" (Guy in Back) did that as his extra chore between being the RSO.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

PM Moderator said:


> I didn't go back and search, but I'm sure that we've plowed this ground already at least once before on this forum.
> To begin -Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and most of Irwin Allen's TV series are science fantasy not science fiction.
> Very few of the Irwin Allen "hero" vehicles that I've seen exhibit much thought to practical operating design.
> 
> ...


Sure, I understand all that. Its powered by imagination and exists to make kids and their parents sit still long enough to watch the commercials. I get that. 

But it is fun to take what we see, and when something looks right go along and see what else MIGHT be right, if only....

Yes, the 'takeoff wiggle' is due to some slack in the lydecker rig, no doubt about it. But it's kinda funny how it happens at the same time the red light in one of the exhausts goes out, and the FS 'straightens out' when the other red light goes out. 

There's no question AT ALL that the control room layout for the 4-window Seaview makes NO sense whatsoever, it was likely done to give a more instinctive 'direction' to the set, let the viewer see constantly which way was 'front' (I have to admit, watching the first season episodes I would get twisted around about where the bow was in relation to the control room layout until I key in on the helm station) and the entry hatch to the Flying Sub is pure comedy, but you go with it. 

See, thing is, I think all this kind of talk comes from love. If we didn't love this stuff, we'd just buy the kits and sit alone, but the love...that guy making the figures for the FS? doing it for the love. Guys doing the decals and lighting rigs and the other aftermarket stuff? for the love. (yeah, Ok, so they make a few bucks doing it. That's an amazing thing to be able to do in this day and age and I cheer the efforts).

I'm willing to bet that just about everyone here who is building the Flying Sub kit will at least once, just once, will take it in hand and walk about the room making a screaming turbofan noise "SHHHHWWWOOooooooooo" 

Now you want to talk crazy? Those R/C sub guys? THEMS is crazy folk!


----------



## Dave Metzner (Jan 1, 1970)

Oh yeah I forgot the big windows! Those really make good sense when you're submerging a vehicle several hundreds of feet under the surface! (Captain Crane how thick are those windows again???) Maybe those windows are the same unobtanium that they used for the walls in the aquarium inside that Romulan Bird of Prey in the Trek movie where they brought the whales back from the 20th Century!
BTW I loved the invisible Bird of Prey sitting in the park in San Francisco - the crushed trash can under one of the landing gear was a really cool touch!
-Thrust vectoring and military aircraft does not translate to Flying Sub very well - Thrust vectoring as applied to mititary aircraft is an addition to a technology that already works - High performance jet aircraft do actually fly- the hardware is practical and works without thrust vectoring. High performance aircraft with thrust vectoring use that technology to augment conventional flight controls not to replace them.

Flying Sub just does not work, it was never intended to actually work, it is a fantasy.
from "The Fantasy Worlds of Irwin Allen"

There are underwater vehicles - ROV's as an example that do operate by vectoring thrust while submerged - That technology has no resemblence to Flying Sub... I could make the leap of faith to agree that FS might be controlled under water by some form of thrust vectoring- but I don't see FS-1 as actually being capable of flight.

I still go back to my list of features designed into Flying sub that do not work and I rest my arguement that FS-1 could not fly except on the wire of the Lydecker rig! 
I guess that I'm from the wrong generation or something I don't find any great facination in attributing technological explanations to fantasy vehicles - I take them at face value.
I've watched a few Voyage to The Bottom of the Sea episodes recently - come on folks - that stuff is just too hoakey - WWI German submarines rising from the grave?!
A Giant underwater man like creature that can wrestle with a full sized Nuclear submarine like it's a toy?! Even as a teen ager I would have laughed at that stuff!
Let's just agree that FS1 is a cool looking piece of Irwin Allen technology and move on.

Dave


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

steve123 said:


> What do all current Military Aircraft that have thrust vectoring have in common? _Control surfaces_.


Yeah, well, the operative word here is "current." And in any case, that's why I invoked the Spinner as an example of a futuristically plausible flying craft (plausible within the context of a sci-fi story, that is) that operates without control surfaces. I mean, if it worked for Syd Mead why couldn't it work for Irwin Allen?

Granted the FS is a pretty fanciful design, especially by today's standards, and any attempt to "explain" how it operates is doomed to failure. I'm no aeronautical engineer (as you may have guessed), but to me the most "logical" explanation is the aforementioned aerodyne thingee.

At the end of the day I'll accept _any_ rationale that avoids the use of a tail-hook and those big, silly training wheels.


----------



## steve123 (Feb 9, 2009)

How about, the skin of the sub can flex? Like the Wright Flyer's wings?

That would also account for the differences in the studio models.

Nelson made the hull of the Craft in Notgonnahappenium, so it was stong light and.....flexible.

I lean left...sub go....


----------



## Dave Metzner (Jan 1, 1970)

Yep, whatever floats your boat!


----------



## steve123 (Feb 9, 2009)

You should have said whatever steers your sub...lol

I wish mine would get here so I can work on it and leave you poor guys alone for a while...

Steve


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

PM Moderator said:


> . . .
> I'm sure that nobody involved in the design of Flying sub spent 30 seconds worrying about how the vehicle would actually be controlled in flight. They figured that Mr Lydecker would handle that!


The two Mr. Lydeckers, actually. Brothers Howard and Theodore, to be exact. In 1966 Howard shared an "Individual Achievement In Cinematography" Emmy award with FX chief L. B. Abbott for _Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea_.


PM Moderator said:


> . . . - a glass floor with lights under it!? (what is this, a Disco!?)











What, you never heard of _Saturday Voyage to the Bottom Fever_?


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

scotpens said:


> What, you never heard of _Saturday Voyage to the Bottom Fever_?


"Would ya just watch the hair? Ya know, I work on my hair a long time and then the gigantic seaweed monster hits it. He hits my hair!"


----------



## steve123 (Feb 9, 2009)

It's amazingly appropriate.
The Flying Sub is shaped like a "_Disko_ Volante"

Tip your waiter,...I'll be here all week....all right all right...

Steve

Addendum: Scotpens: you nailed it!! Disco 'dis way,...disco 'dat way.

Yup you have uncovered the secret!!


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

But the Lydecker brothers didn't DESIGN the things, they just drilled holes in them to add the suspension points and rigged them up on wires. I don't think they were responsible for the designs they photographed after Republic Pictures.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Y3a said:


> But the Lydecker brothers didn't DESIGN the things, they just drilled holes in them to add the suspension points and rigged them up on wires. I don't think they were responsible for the designs they photographed after Republic Pictures.


Isn't that what we were talking about?


PM Moderator said:


> . . . I'm sure that nobody involved in the design of Flying sub spent 30 seconds worrying about how the vehicle would actually be *controlled in flight. They figured that Mr Lydecker would handle that!*


(Emphasis added).


----------



## falcon49xxxx (Aug 4, 2008)

scotpens said:


> The two Mr. Lydeckers, actually. Brothers Howard and Theodore, to be exact. In 1966 Howard shared an "Individual Achievement In Cinematography" Emmy award with FX chief L. B. Abbott for _Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Theodore had allreay passed,when L.B.asked Howard to come out of retirement and help with the effects of VTTFTS.He passed a few weeks after the end of the fourth season.


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

PM Moderator said:


> I didn't go back and search, but I'm sure that we've plowed this ground already at least once before on this forum.
> To begin -Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and most of Irwin Allen's TV series are science fantasy not science fiction.
> Very few of the Irwin Allen "hero" vehicles that I've seen exhibit much thought to practical operating design.
> 
> Dave


There was a newspaper type magazine in the 70s named "The Monster Times". In one issue there was an interview with Irwin Allen were he said that his shows were not sf shows, they were action shows that used sf trappings. He called them 'running-and-jumping' shows.

He was asked about the FS and he said it's purpose was to get the actors to the action faster. He also said that the Seaview was not suppose to be the setting for the show, but rather the vehicle to get the actors to the action. He said that they cut the budget every season to the point where he couldn't do shows off of the Seaview even though the network wanted him too. They just weren't willing to give him the budget he needed. He said that is why there were so many monster suits, that is what they could afford with the budget he was given.

I'm watching the first season episodes now, and I am surprised how good they are. When he had a budget IA could really do a good show.

Except for LOTGs Irwin Allen never had a show canceled due to bad ratings. He canceled Voyage, and Lost because of budget cuts. He canceled "Time Tunnel" because Fox had run out of historical stock footage! :lol:

There is not doubting that Irwin Allen love gadgets, and showing them off.

David.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Krel said:


> There was a newspaper type magazine in the 70s named "The Monster Times".


And I thought I was the only one who remembered.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Carson Dyle said:


> And I thought I was the only one who remembered.


Remember it? I subscribed to it! I loved that rag!

I tend to judge all 'media interest' magazines by the standards of The Monster Times. It also has guided my quasi-pro writing style.

That's the one thing that bothers me and makes me so glad I've discovered this little gang. We (that is, fans who are interested in such things) know just about EVERYTHING about the making of Star Trek, due in part to those Trek fans who 'got the bug', made careers and went and started interviewing people, writing books, doing the research...and the people who loved what they had crafted and had preserved documents and artifacts from the time.

There's really been not that much similar with the IA productions. Oh some, some, bits and pieces. It's all been dismissed as 'just' entertainment and 'children's shows' and such. The fact that in another thread several people who KNOW their stuff can STILL disagree if the 18' Seaview (yes, yes, it's 17'something, I know, and see? there's THAT issue too! we eat our own) was free-floating or ONLY anchored on a cart says a lot about how much we don't know, isn't factually locked down with interviews from those who worked in the tanks with the minis. 

Or the whole "they NEVER USED the 10' Jupiter 2!" argument. 

And it's probably too late now, so many have died or vanished or, sadly, simply become too old to remember. 


Others have commented on where are those '80s fans who were trying to do some of this stuff? Well, I agree, being one of them. Fred Barr likely had that issue 4 of Seaview Soundings ready to go but couldn't get the money to print it. The articles would still be valid, for that matter the previous three issues could be tweaked and reprinted, would be a decent tie-in to the kits, huh? why not? is he 'out' of the fannish world and not looking back? I don't know. I just hope he's well and appreciates how much we all appreciated his hard work.

I know Paul Newitt had a bad patch during his Star Fleet Assembly Manual days (what was the wait for vol.4? 2 years? I got mine  ), but he's bounced back thanks in part to the Polar Lights Enterprise kit and his decals and conversion kits for same. 

Thanks to the hard work of Moebius it's a grand time to be a fan of the works of Irwin Allen, maybe some of those old hands will start to reappear...

I'm really getting a hankering to buy the Flying Sub now...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

The Monster Times, Famous Monsters, Castle of Frankenstein, Cinefantastique, Starlog, and Media Scene pretty much had the sci-fi/fantasy/horror film genres covered back in the pre-internet stone age of the 1970's. Throw in the occasional issue of American Cinematographer and us geeks were good to go.

I still have a pretty formidable library of past issues, and what's surprising is how good some of the writing was. Cinefantastique in particular was indispensable, generating some of the most thoroughly researched and intelligently written coverage the fantasy genre has ever seen.

Pity Frederick S. Clarke wasn't more of an Irwin Allen fan.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

falcon49xxx said:


> Theodore had allreay passed,when L.B.asked Howard to come out of retirement and help with the effects of VTTFTS.He passed a few weeks after the end of the fourth season.


It may be that Howard was the only one of the two brothers who worked on _Voyage_, but Theodore was still very much alive at the time. Howard died in 1969, Theodore in 1990.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Ah...The Monster Times! Truly a great magazine--and that's where I learned about Aurora's Monster Scenes...


----------



## NTRPRZ (Feb 23, 1999)

"Monster Times"! Ah, what memories. I still have a few of 'em laying around somewhere.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> Re: the FS: I've always "imagined" those twin intake discs as serving a duel purpose. In addition to admitting and expelling ballast they appear to me capable of housing some sort of vectored thrust/ vertical lift system, a la the Spinner.


That had occured to me as well, it's really the most rational explanation for a most irrational (albeit cool) design.


----------

