SHADO

UFO 16TH VANE?

Classic

List

Threaded

7 messages Options

Mark Davies-3

UFO 16TH VANE?

Kevin commented:

"Exploding a Myth.

>Many blueprints of the title craft from the series that >have originated
>from various sources since the '70s depict the UFO as >having an
>asymmetrical gap in its vane structure - i.e.: when >viewing top and
>bottom plans there is a gap at a point on the >circumference of the body
>that spaces the vanes on either side of that gap further >apart from each
>other than any of the other vanes are - giving the >impression that a
>vane is missing. In fact, that is exactly the case! A >Japanese kit of
>the UFO released in the early seventies has a vane >missing and seems to
>be the originator of the misconception, the company's >modellers
>obviously having worked from shots of a studio >miniature (shots of this
>particular model can be found elsewhere in this >magazine) which had had
>one of its vanes broken off. To set the record straight all >gaps between
>the vanes on the original models were uniformly spaced >around the body
>(as correctly depicted by SF-FX researcher Phil Rae in >his blueprint of
>some years ago) - replica builders take note."

>You probably have already heard all this, but I thought >in light of the
>excellent instructions on how to build a UFO Mark >Davies has kindly
>posted and the subsequent comments, this might be of >interest.

>I also checked through the book 21st Century Visions >(Paper Tiger) and
>in the quotes from Derek Meddings about how he >designed and built the
>UFO models and the mechanism, etc. he points out that >the motor which
>spun the UFO was so sensitive that they couldn't tilt the >model because
>the weight had to be perfectly balanced to allow the >motor to turn. That
>could also imply that a 16th vane would be needed.

Oh! dear Kevin.Your on my pet subject.Thankyou for your
appreciation of the Miniature UFO instructions by the way...makes all the effort worthwhile.

naughtyhector

Re: UFO 16TH VANE?

--- In [hidden email], "Mark Davies" <aonq79@d...> wrote:
> Kevin commented:
>
> "Exploding a Myth.
> >Many blueprints of the title craft from the series that >have
originated
> >from various sources since the '70s depict the UFO as >having an
> >asymmetrical gap in its vane structure

Not knowing which is the truth - 15 or 16 vanes I decided to do a
little test to satisfy myself. I put on a DVD and studied a sequence
of 3 UFO's in flight but are stationery in the frame for a few
seconds. Forwarding on frame by frame and watching the closest UFO I
noticed that every revolution (what seemed to me 1 revolution) I
could see one whole vane clearly. This indicates to me that there was
a missing vane and paddle and in that gap you had a clear view to see
the preceding vane as the UFO rotated. At this time I have not
studied any more sequences but this has satisfied me that a UFO
miniature, perhaps the largest "hero" one, certainly had a vane
missing. Perhaps it was only for flight sequences to contribute to
the strobing effect but personally I like the 16 vane in static shots
as it is aesthetically more pleasing.

Regards,
Barry

Quantum non locality,
the universe next door.

Kevin Bulmer

RE: UFO 16TH VANE?

In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3

Hi Mark,

I don't have an opinion on this either way. The idea that omitting a
vane to add to the unusual look of the spinning craft makes good sense
to me. One thing I did notice that I haven't seen commented on anywhere
(and I must try and find this photo again) is a picture of the UFO
spinning and one of the vanes is clearly visible on the right of the
picture as being much higher than the others. It's only noticeable in
this one picture because the vane is on the right edge of the ship and
consequently less blurred than the main "rim". I wonder if this "loose"
vane might be indicative of a part of the model that was removable (for
access to the motor or to secure something?) and maybe even proved to be
a pain in the proverbial and consequently might have been removed for
future shots. I know I'm reading an awful lot into one photo, but hey, I
have an active imagination!

Anyway, I'm very new to this group and am probably touching on stuff you
have all debated several times already, in which case please excuse my
abuse of the bandwidth!

In case anybody is interested, I'm looking to make digital models of
some of the ships (just for fun). I'm a professional CG artist and I
work in Maya. When they're done I'm happy to make them available to the
group. I'm amazed at the standard of fan films that Star Wars has
created on the web and I think UFO deserves the same treatment.

Cheers,

Kevin Bulmer

Paolo Brandimarte-2

Re: UFO 16TH VANE?

In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3

>As I pointed out in the instructions I think this was a) either a
practical decision because of the difficulty in keeping the UFO craft
spinning uniformly (as you have touched on) or it was for a theatrical
reason (it simply looked better that way) .My own opinion is that it
enhanced the strobing,flashing effect that Derek said he wanted the craft
to exhibit.

As far as I know, the real need was simply leaving some room for the switch
activating the electric motor.

PB

High Cotton

UFO Guest Star at U.S. Convention

In reply to this post by Kevin Bulmer

Stephanie Beacham, a.k.a Sarah Bosenquet from "Destruction"
is apparently going to be at Mobicon In Mobile, Al. in May.
For info, click here:
http://www.mobicon.org/profile.php?profile=15

Bruce Sherman

Re: UFO Guest Star at U.S. Convention

wow, never connected her to the other movies I know about...esp the Dracula
one, face it, if anyone saw her in that, it wasn't her face that you
remember the most :)

Bruce

bslwrsf

Re: UFO Guest Star at U.S. Convention

In reply to this post by High Cotton

is this the same stephanie beachem from The Colbys and Sister Kate. She is
beautiful and talented. Now i have to watch Destruction again. scott

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