1 60 flying sub Don't pay stupid prices.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- If you liked this video please watch this one • 785675867856 Also, be aware that I bought yet another one for $2499. It's funny really. They want to bend you over the table on these kits and you can find them everywhere, because they are so old and there have been so many of them made under different names and yet they are the same kit! LOL!
Actually the first kit of the Flying Sub was put out by Aurora in 1966. The Flying Sub was introduced for the first time to TV audiences in 1965, early in VOYAGE's second season (1965-66). 1964 was the copyright year for the TV series as it premiered in the fall of 1964. The Flying Sub kit was reissued in 1975 by Aurora and again in 1995 by Monogram. You're showing the 1995 edition in this video. I agree, the prices that some sellers are asking for these days are absurd.
Thank you for that little bit of history. Never took the time to memorize all of the minutia of every kit and the history, but more power to ya.
Always glad to help out a fellow 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea' fan.
I think it was 1968. Says so on the box. Also that's when it appears in Aurora's catalog. I remember getting one -- after many Seaviews -- back then.
Yes, I believe you're right. It was that small version of the Seaview that was released by Aurora in 1966 or 1967. The large versions of the Seaview and Flying Sub released by Moebius are pretty awesome as well.
I assembled this kit in the Summer of 1971, so it must have been the very first Aurora. I recall the drawing on the box was the one with the purple sky in the background. The protective mesh on the left headlight was partially missing. What I like about this kit is the removable midsection, as well as the presence of an engine room with two turbines. I'm now completing the (in comparison) very big Moebius version. Couldn't resist installing working lights for the consoles etc., but the upper and lower halves aren't an easy fit, same for the front window section. The hind door opens up to a corridor, which makes more sense than those exposed turbines, but I still miss that little engine room.
Thank you for sharing that. I need to get back on these builds. 2023 was a very hectic year. I enjoy both kits, these smaller ones and the larger one. I just never seem to have enough time these days to hunker down and get through the builds. Thank you for your input and comments.
I loved the flying sub and remember trying to draw it , the shape is remarkably difficult to capture from TV before video could stop the screen ! still think it is such a beautiful design . I built a Seaview kit and was always struck by the shape of the Flying Sub follows the shape of the bows and foreplanes of the Seaview ! ?? Wales UK.😍😍 I agree people are taking the p*ss with the prices , and the so called " collectors" -especially the ones who don't actually build anything - just inflate the prices for real modellers ! Our hobby is expensive enough already .😫😫
I too enjoyed the shape and concept of the flying sub. I ended up going into the Navy and worked with real submarines and even one of the first mini-sub, the Trieste II. Yeah, people go out of their way to make things more expensive for others. It's sad really.
@@josephmelvin7508 wow , you worked on Trieste 2 , that must have been quite an experience ?
@@fredtedstedman It was in interesting part of Navy history, but it was basically maintenance and repair. It was stationary on the Quay wall at Point Loma / Ballast Point Sub Base San Diego.
@@josephmelvin7508 Great , I have always followed undersea exploration from Cousteau to Ballard . Dad was a Navy Man .WW 2 Fleet Air Arm .
I did not see the Aurora kit in my local hobby (drug store) during the first issue by Aurora.
In 1970 I purchased the Aurora Seaview submarine kit when it was priced at $1.30.
Unfortunately, the time spent dealing with fit issues caused by gaps between components- especially the clear observation window- eventually forced me to keep the box and throw away the kit during a move.
I recently purchased the Monogram re-issue and am surprised by the amount of detail in such an old kit when compared to the recent 1/32 scale version.
Thanks for posting a preview of fit issues.
It will be handy when I find time to build my own kit.
Glad to help. I would say take your time and prefit everything first, because each kit has it's own issues, some of these kits are old and have been in hot garages, or attics, etc...
In the 1960s, my only choice for finishing was a hand brush, small bottles of primary color enamel with tube glue for assembly and the kit decals.
With luck, a friend might own a Mattel Vac-U-Form toy to make clear parts.
No aftermarket.
No 3D printers to make parts.
Despite the work required due to age and flaws in fit, I now have a much better chance to produce a respectable model.😁
@@robertcuny934 Here's a thought for you to try for windows... First off to be honest, the screen used props never used windows, due to glare and reflections issue, having written that, look for some blister packs, you know the clear PETG things that different items come packaged in? That can be used for windows. Even clear two-liter soda bottles can be cut up to make windows. I would suggest using masking tape over the windows, on the inside and then use an exacto to cut out the tape from around the frame and use that as a template for laying over the clear PETG. Viola, you have windows.
@@josephmelvin7508 The only caveat I might add would be that some blister pack clear plastic may discolor with age.
I kept blister pack clear plastic from some egg-shaped night lights for potential use with a 1/12 scale Lindberg Diamond Duster re-issue kit.
When I did retrieve the kit for building, I found that the clear vacformed plastic had discolored and could no longer be used.
Oddly, my original Vac-U-Form clear plastic has never discolored.
One other potential source of clear plastic might be clear plastic vacform plates from party stores.
So far, the samples I have did not yet discolor after being stored for eight years.
@@robertcuny934 Good point. Was the plastic that colored left in or near UV sunlight?
I bought me kit years ago. Built it. That was a very long time ago. I still have it, built and painted to movie spec. Inside and out. I think it was 20 bucks back then.
You got a good deal there man.:)
There's three different sizes out there now, one larger than the one you got, yours, and a smaller one that's part of a three model package deal that has the Flying Sub, the Mini Sub and Diving Bell.
Yes, I'm aware of all three different sized units. Have them all. Thank you.
I built this kit in 1980 and did not gave any of the issues you are describing, i was a fussy modeler so i would have remembered any issues. Maybe some were better than others. The sci fi shows from that era were so cool.
I'm glad you had no issues, but every one of these that I've worked on had fit issues.
I remember the one I built as a kid (early to mid seventies) - the upper middle section of the hull never fitted correctly. However, for someone with space issues, this kit is a lot more friendly than the Moebius monster. I have both of these and the more recent 1/128 mini kit in the stash but I'd love to have a second Aurora kit to build.......
BTW - not seen any 3d files for this - please post a link if you've found one?
Jeff, I see these kits cheap on ebay all of the time and have gotten every one for less than $25.00. There are several different printable files on Yeggi, Thingiverse, CG Trader, Blend Swap and on and on, all you have to do is use google.
@@josephmelvin7508 OK- thanks. I'm in the UK so not that plentiful but I'll look for the files again....
At least on the show, the flying sub did not make its first appearance till the first colour episode of the second season which aired in 1965. Likely around September of that year.
I've built a number of these and they do work up into a nice display model. Some of my customers would spend the amount you mentioned
, just to have this model even if it is not accurate, because it something they in particular desired.
First of all, I'm a huge fan of all of the 60's, 70's and even the 80's iconic ships, robots and vehicles, etc. Having written that, some peope have more money than common sense, or intelligence. Personally, I know for a fact that some guys that do builds will promote anything that will make them money, additionally, I know for a fact that the sites that promote these models and specifically the niche sites that seel these items for ten times what they are worth all work together to boost the prices and to keep the prices high, so that they can make every dollar and squeeze every penny out of every sale and every client they can bill. I'm mainly speaking to those people that are more realistic and pragmatic, especially in the current economy. When inflation is as high as it is right now and gas prices and everything else is going through the roof I'm just advising people that these kits are in reality a dime a dozen and you can find them in various places, other than buying from price gougers that are bending them over the table. Thanks for your input.
1964? But the Flying Sub didn't even debut until the fall of 1965.
You can argue with me all you want. the copyright on the kit and directions is 1964, period, end of drill, no further traffic to follow.
@@josephmelvin7508 I'm not arguing with you, Joseph. You are the one who is taking a defensive posture, by your tone. Calm down. I'm just stating what I know from the show's broadcast history. Must've hit nerve somewhere, geez.
@@jonathanswift2251 No nerves hit here. Just stating facts. What's on the directions and the box. No defensive posture. That's all in your head, perhaps you're the one with thin skin and exposed nerves. LOL!
@@josephmelvin7508 Have a nice week.
@@jonathanswift2251 You know what you can do right? I'm sure you can figure it out. LOL!
IS IT'S POSSIBLE TO MAKE A REAL FLYING SUB!!! HAVE ANYBODY'S EVERY TRY TO DO IT... IT'S B 😎!!! IF 1 WAS REAL....
Actually, we are only steps away from having flying drones. Now, I worked on the Tomahawk cruise missile program, and we worked specifically on salt water activated missiles that would launch from the sea, so technically we have had flying submersible craft since the 80's I know because I was there. You are therefore wrong! www.google.com/search?q=US+Navy%27s+flying+sub+drone&sca_esv=b94808497f26672b&sca_upv=1&source=hp&ei=Rp-OZpWoNfX-ptQP2ISskAk&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZo6tVi-yEkT1tB50OWKhzBqzsJEfoLUv&ved=0ahUKEwiV4_zu25yHAxV1v4kEHVgCC5IQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=US+Navy%27s+flying+sub+drone&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:7de0d537,vid:I3ltznqQp-E,st:0
@@josephmelvin7508 HOW I'M I WRONG... WE DON'T HAVE A FLY SUB. IT'S 2024... THAT'S SHOW WAS IN 1964... DRONES R NOT FLY SHIPS.... THEY R CAMERAS &GUNS. PPL CAN GET INSIDE&FLY THE F.S.
Way too long, too much irrelevant content
Considering that out of 3K views you're one of the few, if any, that have had negative comments, maybe that's a you thing.
I was not being punitive just my 2ct.’s take what you want from it. It was t personal. @@josephmelvin7508