Another techie question

I was wondering if anyone knows how they made the engines blast-off.
What I mean is what material did they use to give it the red burn.
I'm assuming that it was real? Did it melt the models? Is it the same
type of material they use in firecrackers?

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 03:31:20 -0000
"raribear" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I was wondering if anyone knows how they made the engines blast-off.
> What I mean is what material did they use to give it the red burn.
> I'm assuming that it was real? Did it melt the models? Is it the same
> type of material they use in firecrackers?
>

Without actually checking - wasn't it just red smoke, similar to a
flare?

--- In [hidden email], James Gibbon <jg@j...> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 03:31:20 -0000
>
> Without actually checking - wasn't it just red smoke, similar to a
> flare?

Well it looks like smoke coming out of the UFO but I meant the blast-
off of skydiver. It does look like a flare but in my opinion it
doesn't look like smoke it looks more like an actually flame/burn of
some type of material. The closest comparison I can think of would be
what you see when you light fireworks.

I thought maybe someone had attended convention and asked this
question or read a book. I was just wondering if it was an actual
chemical reaction and did the models hold up or did they have to
replace them. We keep seeing the same blast off of skydiver it makes
me think it was a one shot deal.

----- Original Message -----
From: "raribear" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:20 PM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Another techie question


------------------------------------------------------

Without knowing for sure, it's probably just some pyrotechnics. Model
rocketers launch rockets made of paper and plastic with real solid
propellant rocket engines all the time, and even some military aircraft wing
mounted rocket pods are constructed of paper, so it's probably the same
principle. The heat of launch isn't applied long enough to damage the model,
even without fire retardment treatment.

Dave H.

--- In [hidden email], "davrecon" <davrecon@n...> wrote: blast-
> > off of skydiver. It does look like a flare but in my opinion it
> > doesn't look like smoke it looks more like an actually flame/burn
of
> > some type of material. The closest comparison I can think of
would be
> > what you see when you light fireworks.
> >
> > I thought maybe someone had attended convention and asked this
> > question or read a book. I was just wondering if it was an actual
> > chemical reaction and did the models hold up or did they have to
> > replace them. We keep seeing the same blast off of skydiver it
makes
> > me think it was a one shot deal.
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Without knowing for sure, it's probably just some pyrotechnics.
Model
> rocketers launch rockets made of paper and plastic with real solid
> propellant rocket engines all the time, and even some military
aircraft wing
> mounted rocket pods are constructed of paper, so it's probably the
same
> principle. The heat of launch isn't applied long enough to damage
the model,
> even without fire retardment treatment.
>
> Dave H.

I didn't know that (which is why I asked) so thanks for passing the
information on it's interesting.

Karen

Concerning that they may have used one stock shot for the Skydiver take-off scenes, it does seem that they always used the "port" side view, does it not? And I do think the background always looks the same.

davrecon <[hidden email]> wrote:


----- Original Message -----
From: "raribear"
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:20 PM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Another techie question


------------------------------------------------------

Without knowing for sure, it's probably just some pyrotechnics. Model
rocketers launch rockets made of paper and plastic with real solid
propellant rocket engines all the time, and even some military aircraft wing
mounted rocket pods are constructed of paper, so it's probably the same
principle. The heat of launch isn't applied long enough to damage the model,
even without fire retardment treatment.

Dave H.







Yahoo! Groups Links










---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In [hidden email], mark turner <markman2112@y...> wrote:
> Concerning that they may have used one stock shot for the Skydiver
take-off scenes, it does seem that they always used the "port" side
view, does it not? And I do think the background always looks the
same. <

What background? <g> Except for the one in "Sub-Smash," all Sky 1
launches were standard periscope depth separations -- unless you mean
after Sky 1 breaks the surface, when it's _amazing_ how the weather
is always the same... <g>

That's stock footage for you, but UFO is hardly unique in that
respect. There's a lovely little continuity mess-up in an episode of
Thunderbirds where TB2 is flying through thick, dark cloud as it
approaches the danger zone, then when it starts to lose height on its
approach, it's suddenly in blue sky with light fluffy clouds -- and a
couple of seconds later, it's back in the murk. Of course,
Thunderbird 2 is notorious for changing its shape and colour and the
size of its markings in the course of a rescue; it's almost as bad as
the original Trek Enterprise that way. <g>

Someone else mentioned that one reason for shooting the port side
only was the lack of the "Sky" and "Diver" markings on the starboard
side; it's just such a neat sight to see the word split as Sky 1
blasts off, and that just wouldn't be there in a shot from the
starboard side.

And, of course, there's a technical aspect to it: I don't know if
this applied to the UFO FX team, but many a spacecraft or aircraft
has only ever been shot from one side because the other side is where
the mounting bracket is, and the wires, and all the other stuff
needed for illumination and other FX. Again, the TOS Enterprise is a
good example of this. After it was refurbished for the series from
its original state (as used in the pilot episodes), it was only shot
from one side (starboard, I think); shots requiring it to be seen
from the other side were rare, and done by using stock footage and
optically reversing the registration letters on the engine nacelles.

I wonder, too, if this had anything to do with the practice of
depicting almost all aircraft in technical drawings as facing to the
left -- that is, from the port side. This is so widespread a
convention that one of my uni lecturers used to "joke" that the
starboard side of an aeroplane didn't really exist -- which, if true,
would have saved manufacturers a goodly amount of money! <g>

Phil

Derek Medding's contracted with Schermuly (makers of life-saving, rescue
rockets and specializing in marine pyrotechnics and life saving equipment
and who, in 1897, produced the first patented, ship-to-shore rocket-powered
line throwing apparatus)

http://www.mcmurdo.co.uk/?Menu=17&Page=/Contents/ListProducts.asp&AllFrom=36
#

http://www.cyber-heritage.co.uk/schermuly/

http://www.whbrennan.com/products/default.asp?familyId=74&categoryId=181

Excerpt from http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~bat/GA/ga-models.html :

"Model aircraft and spacecraft were often fitted with one or more heat
resistant metal tubes which were used to contain slow burning electrically
fired pyrotechnic devices. Legend has it that many of the earliest
pyrotechnic tubes used by the effects people were actually metal cigar
containers discarded by Gerry Anderson! Later on they were produced en masse
by Schermuly Pistol Rocket Apparatus Ltd., a company that manufactured
flares for naval purposes. Ground vehicles were frequently fitted with an
apparatus that used a CO2 cartridge or pyrotechnic 'Jetex' motor to direct a
blast of air beneath the model to disturb a layer of fine powder (Fuller's
earth) placed on the miniature roadway and thus create a scale cloud of
dust. Some model ground vehicles were configured with a smoke generator to
simulate 'exhaust' fumes. Other models were doused with Titanium
Tetrachloride, a noxious liquid which smokes spontaneously upon contact with
air."


-----Original Message-----
From: raribear [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:21 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Another techie question

--- In [hidden email], James Gibbon <jg@j...> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 03:31:20 -0000
>
> Without actually checking - wasn't it just red smoke, similar to a
> flare?

Well it looks like smoke coming out of the UFO but I meant the blast-
off of skydiver. It does look like a flare but in my opinion it
doesn't look like smoke it looks more like an actually flame/burn of
some type of material. The closest comparison I can think of would be
what you see when you light fireworks.

I thought maybe someone had attended convention and asked this
question or read a book. I was just wondering if it was an actual
chemical reaction and did the models hold up or did they have to
replace them. We keep seeing the same blast off of skydiver it makes
me think it was a one shot deal.









Yahoo! Groups Links

This is really excellent, thank you for posting.
Karen


--- In [hidden email], "Michael Blake" <michaelblake@e...>
wrote:
>
>
> Derek Medding's contracted with Schermuly (makers of life-saving,
rescue
> rockets and specializing in marine pyrotechnics and life saving
equipment
> and who, in 1897, produced the first patented, ship-to-shore rocket-
powered
> line throwing apparatus)
>
> http://www.mcmurdo.co.uk/?
Menu=17&Page=/Contents/ListProducts.asp&AllFrom=36
> #
>
> http://www.cyber-heritage.co.uk/schermuly/
>
> http://www.whbrennan.com/products/default.asp?
familyId=74&categoryId=181
>
> Excerpt from http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~bat/GA/ga-models.html :
>
> "Model aircraft and spacecraft were often fitted with one or more
heat
> resistant metal tubes which were used to contain slow burning
electrically
> fired pyrotechnic devices. Legend has it that many of the earliest
> pyrotechnic tubes used by the effects people were actually metal
cigar
> containers discarded by Gerry Anderson! Later on they were produced
en masse
> by Schermuly Pistol Rocket Apparatus Ltd., a company that
manufactured
> flares for naval purposes. Ground vehicles were frequently fitted
with an
> apparatus that used a CO2 cartridge or pyrotechnic 'Jetex' motor to
direct a
> blast of air beneath the model to disturb a layer of fine powder
(Fuller's
> earth) placed on the miniature roadway and thus create a scale
cloud of
> dust. Some model ground vehicles were configured with a smoke
generator to
> simulate 'exhaust' fumes. Other models were doused with Titanium
> Tetrachloride, a noxious liquid which smokes spontaneously upon
contact with
> air."