Is scale modelling still a thing for the younger crowd?

Aurora Comic Book Ad 1969  
The Moonbus has recently
been re-released by Moebius

It's been a while since I last posted anything (years...oh my!). One would think in the quarantine environment of the past year would lend to something more active than hibernating like a cave bear.

Early this year Arisia 2022 was set to happen, and I was going to participate in a panel about projects for younger makers. Alas the relentlessness of this stupid virus (Oh my Crom!) has resulted in the cancellation of this year's con. Oh well. So why not put some of what I hoped to bring to the panel on a blog post...sure why not.

Now, there were several things I wanted to talk about, not just plastic model kits. I figure I'll focus on this item for starters. For an entire generation these were some of the main maker projects for kids. They were for me at least when I finished my first one at 10 (3rd time was the charm).

What about scale modelling?

By definition, it is the recreation of real, or in an SF/F world, speculative objects in normally a reduced sized for display (or increased in the case of very small things). Fundamentally, a model requires that it be built or made - hence the "maker" bent to this topic.

Now, this can be done from scratch, and fairly impressively if you watch Bill Robertson's Ted Talk on miniatures. While the "museum" quality level of workmanship is impressive, for many if not most, this level of expertise will escape you. This is definitely not the level of work we could expect from the average 8 to 12 year old, particularly given short attention spans. 

Meccano Magazine  -  Sept. 1920

 For this purpose model kits were created. Now we sometimes forget that the idea of prepackaging miniatures in easy to assemble form goes back well beyond plastic kits, or even the idea that scale miniatures were purely meant for adults. If anything, much of this was a "kid" thing. Sure you have assembled miniature toys such as boats, trains, dollhouses and airplanes that were meant to be played with, but with the advent of childhood playtime, which wasn't always a thing, the idea of building these things became much more a part of childhood.

Solid Plans from
Air Trails (Feb.1937)

An example are the reproductions afforded by Meccano, one of the earliest construction toys. Still, while perhaps limited in their accuracy, they do represent a whole range of building toys that are meant to go beyond simply building blocks. Lego and Lincoln Logs are just a couple of additional examples. The classic scale model though is meant to represent accurately in miniature a larger subject. 

As mentioned earlier, the creation of kits simplified the creation of static scale models for your average model builder. The popular craft of solid models required using 3 orthogonal views of the object or parts, and then using those patterns for cutting or carving out sections on a block of soft wood. A modeler then had to blend together the shapes into something like the original by turning 2D diagrams into a 3D object. with only with the benefit of the wetware between your ears! Initial wood kits would pre-finish these wood parts to some extent. Needless to say plastic kits did away with that since all the parts for the subject are already molded into their final state, if in piecemeal fashion. Some assembly was always required.

Is kit building then still a "maker" thing, and how is it a young maker thing

There is indeed a sense that assembling plastic model kits is not exactly model making and not exactly a "maker" project (for context within the modeler community see see the professional model maker Dave Merriman's introduction on crafting the "Dove" from Doppelganger over at cultTVman). Kit assembly doesn't carry the notion of being designed and built from scratch as a kind of cradle to done operation which "making" sort of implies. In any case, kit building is not totally divorced from the sense of accomplishment that one gets when something is finished.

Steam boat plans from   
"The Boy's Book of Model Boats"  
R.F. Yates, 1920

Recall that the target audience we are talking about here, namely kids. The "Boy's Book on Model Boats" from 1920 shows the fairly simple solid plans for a steamboat which are quite within reach of young crafter who can cut soft wood. Some of the other projects depicted are very ambitious, even involving miniature steam engines. It is perhaps telling that many of the illustrations feature adults and none really feature children. Simple projects are key for starters. They are more likely to succeed and even if the initial attempts don't work they can point to what is achievable. As I mentioned earlier, my first successful kit was actually my 3rd attempt. It wasn't perfect, paint was sloppy and inaccurate, cement fingerprints happened here and there, but for the most part I was happy with the finished product (Monogram 1/48 P-39)

Modern starter and beginner plastic kits admittedly don't require the kind of skill a generation ago (and much less than the solid models of 2 generations ago). They still require the ability to follow instructions and organize and plan a project. Many modern starter kits are fully painted and snap without glue, so many of the issues parents had with kits before are not as great - namely plastic cement and enamel paints. 

Where should a beginner go?

The first thing to consider is what the child would consider a worthwhile or what they are interested in. The may like cars more than airplanes or vice-versa, or maybe it's dinosaurs, or ships, or sci-fi. There are a fairly wide variety of subjects that can be found. As confirmed in  a recent conversation with a local hobby shop dealer, if the kit is not interesting it is not going anywhere.

The model needs to be simple. Ages ago, at another hobby shop I was in, I overheard a parent trying to return a kit his son had spent his birthday money on. It was a huge and beautiful kit of a Fokker Triplane consisting of its un-skinned appearance, meaning all the internal structure was exposed. Now, this was a serious mistake since one can imagine this greatly exceeded the skill level of the boy to build (which the Dad argued with the dealer). 

A starter set should have a low number of parts. Features such as snap assembly and pre-painted parts should be considered a plus. Given that not all starter kits are created equal, it is nice that the internet and YouTube in particular can provide a wide variety of reviews of candidate kits. 

Bandai is perhaps the best model kit provider for snap together, pre-painted kits. Much of their experience may come from the precisely engineered mecha kits that are popular in Japan. These are often highly detailed and fully articulated. Since they acquired the license for Star Wars kits they have produced a long series of highly detailed snap and pre-painted kits. While fairly pricey at times for the finished size, these kits are still much sought after by adults due to the craftsmanship of the kits and the ease with which you can build them. Outside of the Star Wars line, they also produce a quite affordable and easy starter series of Pokemon figures. Again the design of the models is impressive and often contain working parts to say wiggle ears or tails for instance.

    

Bandai snap kits - Pikachu on the left, Death Star II on the right. Neither needs paints or glue and assemble to about 3 inches (without stand)

Other companies do make "snap" kits of genre subjects, namely Star Wars. Currently the other main license holder is Revell and they do also have a line of "easy snap" kits for the beginner. The detail on these can be somewhat lax, but they definitely fit the "look like what it's suppose to be" bill and often feature fancy details like sound effects. Otherwise, snap together (or even screw together) kits are available from various manufacturers, principally cars and airplanes.

Airfix from England markets a Lego-like Quickbuild series. It is akin to a blend of Lego with scale modeling. The parts are specialized to yield a close to scale finish, including paint schemes, while at the same time combining the ease the assembly methods of a Lego kit build. Quickbuild kits actually look much easier than some of the bigger Lego kits or advanced Lego Technic builds, some of which are now issued with an age recommendation of 18+. 

Airfix P-51 QuickBuild set 

Beyond Snap Kits (and dealing with implements of destruction)

Snap together kits are really only a starting point. If the bug for building scale model bites, one will want to move to non-snap kits that will require painting and gluing. Even some snap kits can benefit from a judicious use of plastic cement and paint washes. There's just a limit to the variety of subjects available as pre-painted snap kits. The phrase "implements of destruction" refers to the fact that some tools are not totally innocuous; cements give off fumes, the permanence of paints, and the sharpness of X-acto knives can give a parent pause.

First, I'll talk about non-snap kits. A good starter for that phase are some of the Airfix Starter sets that already come with glue and paints. These have already been selected or engineered to use fewer parts. Some older kits, those designed in the 60s and 70s may also fit the bill since they date from a time when model kit builders were less demanding, pretty much as 12 year olds may be. Many companies list skill level ratings on the boxes, and that's a useful indicator of how hard it might be. 

The nostalgia market currently has resulted in many of the older kits being re-issued. Airfix releases them with the actual title of Vintage Classics. Round 2, which has acquired many older molds sells them under various brands: Round 2, Polar Lights, Lindbergh, Hawk, and AMT. Atlantis and Moebius have picked up many of the molds of the old Aurora company, noted for its SF/F genre kits. These have been re-released by them under their brand. Moebius has also released many new SF kits, some of which (but not all) would fit the easy build category. Note, old kits are often poorly reviewed by modern builders as being woefully out of date and inaccurate, and indeed many old molds have not aged well (warps and other defects). One of the problems with the hobby right now for kids, however, is that much of it is directed to ambitious adults who demand a much higher level of detail, accuracy, and thus skill. As a result, many new tool kits (meaning a new mold was created) are made for that market specifically and are not for beginners. 

Overall, this is not a terribly expensive hobby. Some kits are indeed pricey, going above $40, $50, or even $100+. Generally though, the easier starter kits have a much lower price. Indeed, very large and expensive kits tend to also be the more complicated ones. They may be tempting, but getting in over one's head can indeed be discouraging.

Implements of Construction (and Destruction)

Beyond the painted snap kits, one is going to need some basic supplies, even if using starter kits that come with some supplies. Paints and brushes for starters. Brushes are fine for beginners. Actually brushes are fine in general. There's a lot of modeling videos that make extensive use and recommendation of airbrushes, but you can get a pretty good finish with a good clean brush. 

Even in the case of starter sets that come with paints, sometimes they are dry and often lack little detail colors like regular basics such red, yellow, or blue. For instance flesh tones are rarely included and it is best not to have green people in general (Orians excepted). Acrylics paints are nice in that they clean up with water if dealt with quickly, so cleaning brushes and the odd stain can be easily dealt with. Dedicated model acrylics are best, but some crafting acrylics may do, particularly if thinned with isopropyl alcohol.

Of course, if you are not working with snap kits you will need plastic cement. Pretty much all plastic cements use mineral solvents and chemicals that are hazardous. For certain things, such as gluing clear parts, using a clear acrylic craft glue can work quite well. In fact for clear parts it prevents frosting which can mar a clear part. On the other hand, these are not particularly strong and can be a bit rubbery and hard to paint. Testors markets non-toxic plastic cements. These may do the job, but they are never quite as good as standard cements. Generally, make sure that plastic cements are used in well ventilated areas, and you never need as much as you think. Keep cements capped when not in use and this helps keep fumes at bay (as well as limit spillage that can result in glue spots on furniture and clothing).

Tree snips are very safe tools for removing parts from the plastic "trees" they are attached to.  Hobby knives and X-acto blades are indeed very sharp and dangerous.  They are probably best avoided by the youngest modelers. They are useful when snips can't quite do the job, but can be left for when the modeler is more practiced and old enough to respect the tool. You also need a safe place to cut, i.e. some kind of surface that can be cut into (wood or plastic cutting block or self-healing board). Always leave sharp tools in a stable place where one will not accidentally drop it or have it roll away. I found a  block of Styrofoam is useful to bury the blade in place keep it from rolling away. Some hobby and craft blades are also retractable that adds a layer of safety. I'll be honest, my fingers carry quite a few scars from model building over the years.

Hobby sanding paper (very fine grit) and/or fine sanding sticks, like the kind for doing nails and polishing. When used in combination with tree snips it can preclude some of the sharp hobby knife usage. Tweezers and masking tape can also help. The former to hold small parts, and the latter to keep small parts from flying off when getting snipped or cut (the trick is to place the tape under the connection you are cutting in so that the tape will hold the part even when the cut is done). Masking tape can also control which areas get painted and which don't.

And finally it's handy to provide some specific space that won't be disturbed by others. Even a bridge table than can be left up for a while will do. Many projects at the beginning may take a day or two, others may take a week. It is important that the maker will feel that the project is safe while it is unattended. A project box, such as a shoe box or printer paper boxes can help (making one out of two paper box lids is pretty good).

Wrapping this post up

Hopefully this long account covers the plastic kit part of what I would have talked about. There is also my interest in discussing paper  modeling and origami (sure why not...it's making with square paper!). For getting more ideas about this I suggest checking out some of the YouTube reviews of Bandai kits and Airfix starter and vintage classics. You can also review my earlier post on SF scale modeling. James May's Toy Stories series is very close to the theme of maker projects for young people in episodes dealing with Meccano, Lego, and Airfix. This last one of course is also enlightening with respect to the appeal of scale modeling and I recommend it if you have access to a streaming service that carries it. 

The tips provided are certainly not all the possible tips. There are plenty of blogs and videos that can give advice on many basic and more advanced techniques for scale model building. I haven't even touched the art of scratch building or of particular interest in SF modeling - kitbashing. Given this was mainly directed to the Arisia crowd you should check some kit bashing projects out or even some "junk" bashing, where the component parts come from dollar stores or recycle bins such as the stuff from Studson Studio. (NOTE: kitbashing is a fairly advanced skill)

Also check out some of the previous paper model projects done for Arisia. While different from plastic kits, these are also meant to be easy builds and can expose you to the paper scale modeling world.

Mod Mon: Paper Dragons and Workshops

Workshop Models: Paper Dragon - a simple paper models for beginners

Umpteen apologies. This link should have been put up ages ago, but I kept putting it off. This is the posting for the dragon paper model I created for a Fast Track workshop at Arisia 2014. The original purpose was for a fast paper model that kids could build. It needed to be easy to put together, require minimal instruction, and at the same time would look somewhat interesting. I had a chance to do this again for 2016, so here's the update. Since then, I did another workshop and another model which I will be adding soon (a familiar telephone box).
     The initial section is some ideas and experiences of doing card modeling workshops. If you just want that dragon, then skip down a bit.

A word about Workshops - Read if planning for one

     The thing about workshop models is that typically you have very little time to work on them, generally not much more than an hour. Age is also an issue when designing or picking out a kit for it. You should consider the subject matter. While some of the simpler things to do are basically boxes or cones, it pays to make it somewhat interesting to your intended audience. Young children don't always sit still for long periods of direction and instruction, particularly if the rest of the room is running around doing something else. Even when working with adults, consider that the time for direction and instruction will take away from the actual build time. As a result use a kit with few parts that glue together easily. You can take advantage of subjects where the location of parts are more self explanatory, such as cars for example - where the wheels go is fairly obvious (see discussion about Knowledge in the World and Knowledge in the Head from Don Norman's Design of Everyday Things).
     While there are many things that are just a box, even a box can be made a little more interesting with a little detail skinning, like a Borg cube.It is possible to do interesting things with cubes as well. if you stretch a cube out into a rhomboid and it can be a racer or a rocket, and still be not much harder to build. Some Minecraft and Hako subjects can fit that bill nicely.
     One thing to also consider are the costs of running it. While it is nice when the people running the workshop can print the kits for you, ideally on a color laser printer, the cost of color print outs can add up. Picking a kit that uses only a few pages, say just 1 or 2, can make that more manageable (truth be told, I can barely manage a dozen builds at a time, so 16-20 kits is pretty much my max for print outs). Another strategy is picking out kits that are basically monochromatic. Here you can take advantage of using a standard black and white laser printer or even a photocopier to create the kits and simple use colored card stock instead of that valuable ink. Sci-fi subjects might have an edge here given the number of subjects that are mostly white with just a dash of color here and there.

The Dragon - a beginner model

     The dragon is a design idea that allows participants to color in and finish it in whatever fashion they saw fit. Given that the original workshop was for Arisia's Fast Track, which is for ages 6-12, I also wanted to keep it fun and light, but more intricate than a Borg cube. The model has very few parts, goes together easily, and be very forgiving of poor folds and missed attachment points. There are also certain obvious locations for the parts, i.e. head goes in front, tail in back, feet over the leg stumps. The only drawback is the zig-zag of the tab/scales can take a while to cut, but it doesn't have to be perfectly cut either.. It's also cheap, being just a black line drawing; ready made for photocopiers or black and white laser printers.
     The design doesn't use internal tabs, but instead uses the outward spines as external tabs to attach several parts. These are matched up and glued together. You shouldn't need an X-acto or any such implement to cut this up - safety scissors should do just fine. Tabs are fairly broad and cut at obvious angles so while scoring folds would help, it isn't necessary. The parts should naturally fold along crease lines.
     I encourage builders to color it in any color you want and it will be easier to color in before assembly. Felt tip pens are better as you are less likely to accidentally draw over glue points, but the way the glue points are designed (external tabs), you should be ok even with crayons (the wax in crayons would normally make gluing pieces together difficult). Another design idea is gluing things onto the finished version, such as from colored paper scraps or construction paper. The wings themselves are only printed on one side, so you will definitely have to finish them off on the reverse side. While ideally you do want to use card stock, which is available in various colors from office supply stores or craft shops. I have printed this model on construction paper (you will probably need to cut it down to 8.5"x11" to fit into your printer) and it does work, but construction paper is flimsier though and dragons made of this are more likely to suffer from wobbly legs and flimsy wings. In this case, some strategic reinforcement from scraps might solve that problem.

The model(pdf)	the model (png)	the instructions
Dragon.pdf	Dragon.png	DragonIns.png

Enterprise vs Millenium Falcon?

Recently Io9 posted a youtube video where this question was posted to various celebrities attending the San Diego ComiCon (link to article here). The answers for the most part are fairly poor, which is surprising given that these are all people in SF. The exception is Adam Savage who does know his SF tech tries to argue from a visual history of the respective franchises, and Cas Anvar who knows how characters drive plots: "Han Solo has got way too much luck."

Star Trek vs. Star Wars?

The whole area has been filled with many pages of acrid forum threads and loud discussions at con panels (in good fun of course). Perhaps the most comprehensive (to be kind) collection of pages on the matter are those written by Michael Wong at StarDestroyer.net. The general tone of the entries shows a strong bias  for the SW empire over the ST federation. On the other hand, there are many ways in which it is obvious that the Star Wars universe from the point of view of weapons and warfare is immeasurably superior to the Star Trek's Federation. Of course this can get ardent trekkies in a twist, but to be fair it is tied to the very nature of the universes presented. Staying away from books and "technical" manuals, and only sticking to what has actually been put to film and video, the evidence is there.

Domain

The Star Wars universe encompasses an entire galaxy. The Federation and immediate boundary domains (Klingons, Romulans, et.al.) only encompass a section of the galaxy. A sizable section, but only a section nonetheless. By the very admission of its creator, Gene Rodenberry, the vast volume of the Federation territory remains largely unexplored. In fact it is the very reason the exploratory mission of Starfleet exists. The Star Wars galaxy on the other hand is vastly populated by diverse cultures interconnected by a vast commercial network and controlled by a strong centralized bureaucracy. While they are worlds that may be considered "backwater" planets and planets about which little is known but not totally unknown. In, ESB, Luke is told to go to the Dagobah system, and that seems to be information enough to get there, in spite of being a theoretically uninhabited planet whose sole resident picked a place to literally get lost in.

Travel Capacity

The Star Wars universe allows travel via hyperspace pretty much from any part in the galaxy to any other part within a day. The Star Trek universe, and specifically the TV Star Trek universe requires long periods, of days and weeks to travel from one extreme of its territory to another, which are only sub-sections of the federation volume. Obviously Star Wars ship command an all important power in any battle, the ability to engage and disengage at any point at will.
     Some of the video commentators mentioned the difference in maneuverability of the Enterprise vs. that of the Millenium Falcon. On the other hand, the main ships of the Star Wars universe wallow about space like puffy white clouds rather than battlecruisers. In some of the newer, updated effect sequences of even the old show, the Enterprise and other Constitution class vessels are shown to be able to maneuver and shoot quite well, much better than any Star Destroyer at any rate. On the other hand, the Star Wars universe can count on swarms of highly maneuverable fighters than can stand up to close quarters with a Star Destroyer.

Offensive and Defensive capacity

This is the one place where I would consider handing the advantage to the Star Trek universe with one exception. Star Wars weapons are shown to create explosive  heating and electrical disturbances (arcing) on most targets they hit. The energy delivered can be substantial. At no point, however, is a Star Wars blaster or laser from either armed personnel or ship weaponry shown to actually destabilize the actual matter of the target; i.e. make them just disappear. This is, as many a redshirt discovered, a somewhat everyday thing in the Star Trek universe. The energies involved represent orders of magnitudes in difference.
     The one exception in this Federation superiority would have to be in the destructive force of the Death Star. While it is admitted that it would take "thousands of ships with more power [than currently known]" to carry this out in that universe, it nevertheless does manage to boil away an entire earth-like planet within a few seconds. That is really huge.
     Defensively, is a harder call. Both universes have shields. The Star Wars universe seems to allow larger ships to be able to sustain direct hits from their weaponry with little serious effect, other than heavy shaking, as long as the shields are up. Similarly, Star Trek shields seem to provide similar support. Here I would tend to call it a draw.

Sheer numbers

The Star Wars universe is an entire galaxy, and the main nemesis, the Empire, can count on a huge number of ships to bring to bear in a military situation. The Federation, while large, particularly in it's last shown "Next Generation" phase, is not as large as that shown or implied by the Star Wars universe. Of course the problem here is that for the Star Wars universe, we are not explicitly told what that size may be, but to realistically control an entire galaxy full of sentient populated planets (see Domain), it would really have to be big, if spread out.

 But how powerful are they really?

And this is where it all breaks down. You read up on StarDestroyer.net's calculations and citations and one comes up with yields in the hundreds, thousands, or millions of Gigawatts of output on their laser blasts. In spite of this, rarely is the actual damage caused by a hit from these weapons on ships (innocent asteroids notwithstanding) show damage in this range, the kind of damage that should vaporize small fighter craft and boil away huge holes through the entirety of a ship. Even the starship Enterprise rarely boils away asteroids or generates small novas with their photon torpedoes which are described as micro-antimatter  bombs (1g of antimatter with equivalent of matter or 2 thousands of a Kg mass should yield about 180 megajoules or 43 kilotons  or nearly 3 Hiroshimas).
     Then again the damage shown has nothing really to do with the theoretical or purported yields of the weapons involved. The key differences between the two franchises lies in the foundations they rely on for their story telling. It is also tied by the primary medium they serve; namely movies in the case of Star Wars, and television in Star Trek.

      Star Wars is an epic saga of warfare and adventure by a few individuals embroiled in a galaxy wide war. Battles are spread out along different isolated planets, encompassing major fleet actions and yet well within the visual range of each other, sometimes only a few 10s of km or less. Moreover,  the principal weapon used, or at least actively shown in the thick of it, is the fighter. Capital ships while visible don't seem to be as much a part of it as the fighters are, in spite of the fact that they are occasionally shown to be more than capable of taking each other out. When one looks at it, it does remind one of World War II movies, and indeed the destructive capabilities of the fleets in action do seem to reflect those seen in classic war films like Sink the Bismark, Pursuit of the Graf Spee, Flying Tigers, Flying Leathernecks, Tora Tora Tora, The Battle of Britain and  The Bridges at Toko-Ri. George Lucas made no bones about the fact (at least initially) that his stories were based on 1930s serials and WWII movies. The parallels to the first Deast Star attack to Dambusters (which includes direct transcriptions) and 633 Squadron are undeniable. So, it is not surprising that the basic mode is more like the Pacific in WWII. There are bases on planets (islands) that can be assaulted by heavy starships (battleships and cruisers, Longest Day) that can in turn be defeated by extremely heavy land based ion cannons (Guns of Navarone), other heavy starships (Sink the Bismark), and more generally by small fighters and light bombers (Tora, Tora, Tora). In the mix you throw in the MF which is like a PT boat. The destructive power is in that sense is similar in order to have similar action sequences as the ones seen in those kinds of films. We are not talking kilotons here.
     Star Trek, on the other hand, doesn't even have the word "war" in the title. As a result the "E" is generally only as powerful as necessary for a given plot. It is also not generally used as part of a fleet, so it needs to be able to defend itself independently. The 19th century sailing adventure stories where single ships generally only slugged it out with other individual ships of a similar class - armed worldwide cruisers - is the principal model for this type of story. Gene Roddenberry professed that Kirk could be seen as Horatio Hornblower in space. Fleets of this period patrolled alone in far off oceans typically  protecting trade, initiating contact with new cultures, first contacts with islanders, colonization, reconnaissance, and just plain scientific exploration. When there was warfare, it was intense, but slow, allowing the captain to get advice from his first officer on best tactics while under fire. Federation starships can withstand detonations of incredibly powerful weapons at point blank range, which like the way pirate movies have ships can fire broadsides at each other and yet some how, Error Flynn can still command a ship.
    Star Trek stories tend to start when you get somewhere and end just before you leave. For the purposes of plot, you can't get help from anywhere particularly quickly or run away quickly so the vastness of space is a plus to explain why you have to resolve your story within the confines of a 1 hour episode, basically exactly where they are. The 19th century sailing adventure fits that bill rather nicely. Unfortunately movies, and an increased demand for faster paced stories has somewhat killed that. Star Wars is really the epitome of space opera. Space opera is by definition epic, but as a movie it has a limited amount of time to tell a story. Space Opera also require action. Things have to happen, one right after the other, so you can't have "all that tedious mucking about in hyperspace" type stuff. Vast distances of a galaxy have to be covered in less time than what it takes for the next bathroom break. The threat has to be eminent, and not surprisingly armed to the teeth. Star Trek has not escaped this as the movies have also relied on much more warfare and destruction to keep the action going. The need for speed has even been epitomized by the last Star Trek movie which presented negligent travel times between Earth and the Klingon home world either by ship or nearly instantaneously by transwarp transporter (even instantaneous communications; the days of Uhura saying it will take several hours for a reply from Starfleet are gone). Whereas in the original series starships were rarely destroyed in warfare, battles where much more the norm in the DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise incarnations.
     So how powerful are they? Well in the end, really only as powerful as they need to be. To expect consistency, particularly from the film franchises, is chimeric as well. The levels of technology are as Arthur C. Clarke would have it, no different from magic as far as an observer from the late 20th or early 21st century would see it. There is definitely a certain enjoyment one can have from trying to figure out how many Gigawatts a weapons system generated or the number of g's pulled by a ship during some maneuver, but in the end I really wouldn't expect the writers of these franchises to put anywhere near the effort to figure it out and film it accurately. From their point of view, they want to tell a story in the best way possible. If that means you can hear explosions in space, so be it.

Arisia 2015: Miniatures and Modeling for Gamers and Fans

Various recent releases (clockwise)
Monarch Models "Ghost",
Revell Star Wars 7 Tie, Pegasus Luna,
Moebius Colonial One, Airfix Angel
Interceptor, Revell Ger. Enterprise,
Bandai Gundam, Dragon Tranquility
Base, Moebius Ranger and Flying Sub
McFarlane Walking Dead, Pegasus
Nautilus, Fantastic Plastic Avatar
Shuttle, Moebius Johny Quest
Dragonfly 

In spite of being in one of the most hidden rooms in the hotel, and placed right up against Masquerade (which is single most attended item this weekend), we actually had a fair amount of people there. Most of the audience were familiar with one or another aspect of the topic, but there were a few self acknowledged newbies in the group which was nice. My fellow panelist were T. Christopher Davis who specialized in gaming miniatures and terrains, and John "Madman Lighting" Cook who is an award winning scale modeler as well as a manufacturer of lighting kits for models. I brought along several of my old models and a couple of new paper ones, and not surprisingly for me, got to talk about the paper end of the hobby.
     Arisia has a large gaming component among its attendees. The

gaming track at Arisia consists of various active game rooms, discussions about games, video games, and LARPS. It is definitely a con that doesn't forget that science fiction and fantasy is just fun. Part of this is also reflected by the amount of the con

Dwarf gaming miniature
from Basicks kit

devoted to costuming, both as a topic of discussion and visibly displayed by participants in costume reflecting their fen interests (be it creative anachronism, cosplay, subject fandom, or just whatever comes to mind).  It was nice that this year we got at least one panel devoted to those of us who like to craft our fandom in miniature instead of wearing it.
     The thing about this hobby is that it is currently in a kind of golden age. Never before have so many different subjects and areas in this genre been available for builds. The greater number of genre films and TV shows, comic books, and games is part of the reason. Another reason for the growth of this niche in the hobby is the increasing number of fans who really embrace their "geek"ness. So you prefer working with miniature starships and dwarves, so what, they are cool.

What was it exactly?

Basically, science fiction and fantasy in miniature for a variety of purposes. There is of course the replica of the science fiction vehicles we are all familiar from film and television. I personally believe this also covers the replication of props, sometimes to a higher fidelity than those that were actually used on film (admittedly this can crossover into costuming). There is also the creation of elaborate stages in miniature and game pieces for use in table top gaming. It is a creative aspect of fandom that also extends into other media such as Lego construction and 3D virtual models and 3D printing. Another expression of the hobby is in figure modeling, either full figures or busts (aside from game pieces). These figure models tend to have a wider span covering not just science fiction, but also horror, fantasy, and even popular culture and humor.
     Given the collective experience of the panelists, we initially spoke on the nature of our hobby from our individual point of view, how we work, what we found interesting, what it seems to be like (something which I think this internet cartoon captured quite well.

We focused on discussing the techniques and tools involved in how to put our stuff together. We mostly opted for opening the floor to questions to get a sense of what attendees wanted to know.

Lindberg models released in 1954 what is perhaps the first science fiction model, although given the saucer craze at the time, they may have thought it was an educated guess at a real artifact. It has been re-released several times since.

How does one get started?

A fairly basic question which we got early on. Well I guess the starting point should be your nearest hobby shop, or perhaps (given that these have become fewer and farther between than they used to be) a nearby crafting chain. The latter choice is problematic in that your choices, particularly in the SF/F area will be limited. Some stores specialize in gaming resources and carry miniatures. Comic book stores may also stock both gaming miniatures and SF/F models as well as limited supplies for working on them. Occasionally major franchises, like Star Wars, will license miniatures, but toy stores nowadays only rarely carry models (although some starship modelers are currently thinking about how to work with the new giant Hasbro Millennium Falcon and X-wing toys. Reworking actual toys into quality models is not unheard of, but it is a bit of work). Of course there is always the internet where you can either find many items on amazon.com or other more specialized sites (I'll put the link list at the end).

Pre-painted
Revell SnapTite
mini-kit

     The range of models and miniatures can also vary. One can start with the finished collectible or nearly ready finished variety. Many models currently are designed as simpler "snap-fit" kits that don't require glue, and are frequently already painted. A whole series of small scale Star Wars figures are marketed this way with very few pre-painted parts in bubble packaging. This is ideal for children or people who have never built any of these types of models before. On the other hand, more experienced modelers prefer the traditional paint and glue type. This is because all kits often reflect a compromise of one kind or another between price, ease of construction, size and so forth. Pre-painted kits may not be the "right color" and since you can't "test fit" a part, or sand seams (it ruins the finish) it can create problems. This all depends on questions of accuracy* and detailed finish.

Madman's EarthForce (B5) Starfury
with his lighting kit (on display
during this session)

    While in general, it is not a particularly expensive hobby, one can expect to spend a certain amount in setting up a basic workshop (see tools next section). Some kits can indeed get expensive, particularly if one starts adding aftermarket parts such as detail sets and limited run "garage" kits. If you have your heart set on something that is out of production or only available in Japan, well that is an order of magnitude more. Of late the ultimate kits are huge, limited run, 3D printed ones such as the 1/700 scale Cygnus from "The Black Hole" which was available from Shapeways (in sections, runs up in the thousands).
     Take for example the Moebius updated re-release of the old Orion III model from Aurora. The basic kit is actually not a bad starter kit. It is reasonably sized, has relatively few parts, and no particular assembly problems. It typically retails for $30. Unfortunately, the classic Pan Am markings are still under trade mark, so it doesn't come with any. Fortunately you can get aftermarket decals from a couple of decal manufacturers. Prices range from $7 to $17 (the latter include alternate versions, such as NASA or USAF). DIY inkjet decal sets to make your own run around the same price, although you should get enough material to do several models. If you want to get really fancy, you can add interior and exterior detail with a brass photo-etch set at $27. So you could make this model amazing for about $60-70 (paints, brushes, cement, and fillers are overhead).
     One aspect not to be overlooked is scratch building with whatever you can find. Many amazing subjects are created from found items and interesting packaging such as Easter candy eggs, empty pill canisters, and wood. It is also important to know that from a commercial point of view, some things are unlikely to receive a wide release, and garage kit version releases that may happen can also be very expensive. A little creativity can go a long way (see this "pickled alien" display for instance)

*Accuracy - a side note:

The thing about accuracy is that these are fantasy objects (real space excepted). Accuracy is thus a relative thing. Often the subject may only have existed as a variety of shooting models which don't entirely agree with each other. The true color is an endless question, particularly since that depends on a variety of unknown aspects of the model's photography: lighting, exposure, color balance, monitor and can be very subjective. Even scale can be open to question. It is well known that most SF ships on film are generally smaller on the outside than what is portrayed as the insides.

Tools of the hobby

The topic most asked about in one way or another regarded tools and their usage. The question is often one of finish and how much you want to spend in blood and treasure. Typical tools depend on your media: plastic, resin, paper, clay, Legos or old pill and film canisters. Paints are also necessary and can vary with different surfaces. Paint can be applied with brushes, air brushes or even specialized markers. Additional after-market parts or decals, or even kits for adding lights or extra details such as photo-etched brass (PE sets) for commercial releases are also available.
      Chris Davis and myself admit that on a very basic level, we don't want to spend too much money on this, so we may rely on substitutes. An interesting comment Chris made is that often the railroad hobbyist have developed specialized tools and materials that you can find at the hobby shop at a premium price, but cheaper equivalent may be available at your local hardware store.
     A classic example of going for the cheap solution is the usage of pink insulation foam to build up terrain for a game field or a diorama. The material is relatively cheap in bulk (one sheet should last a long time), and can be carved with typical carving tools such as small files and hobby knives and easy to paint (just not spray enamels which will melt it, although I've seen that done for effect). The only specialized tool it needs is a hot wire cutter to make smooth cuts (it melts through the foam without tearing it).
      John Cook recommends a good airbrush to really improve the finish, both in overall coating as well as detail paint finishes on a model. To demonstrate he brought in his Klingon BOP as well as a Babylon 5 Starfury. Both kits were meticulously painted and carefully shaded as well as equipped with lighting kits which he sells as aftermarket add-ons. Many find lighting a key component to many a starship miniature (You can see a detailed article on his Starfury at the Starship modeler site in the "Wrecks" gallery).
      I myself added that in the case of paper models, you don't need much more than glue, scissors and a good printer to get started (or printed kit as some are now available in your local bookstore). That being said, sticky glues are better than white glues, sharp blades with a steel edged ruler can sometimes be handier than scissors, and a variety of paper weights will help, not just cardstock. I have more details in a previous posting.
      You can find better detailed listings on hobby web sits, but this is a brief overview of things we said:

• An X-acto knife or its equivalent (yes! the knife of Exact-Zero!)
• It is handy for all 3 types of modeling: plastic, gaming, and paper. Note, blades can come in several types, not just the classic no. 11 (with regards to kids, these are also very sharp)
• Jewelers files
• These often come in sets to provide a variety of sanding possibilities and even limited drilling into surfaces and punching into soft surfaces. 
• A pin vise (a favorite of Chris for gaming miniatures)
• Basically a small hand drill. Allows you to drive small holes into an item accurately with good control. Handy for adding steel pins to help hold parts together.
• Cyanoacrylate glue (aka Super Glue or Krazy Glue Brand - The KraGle)
• While plastic models can be made with just plastic cement (check to see that it works with polystyrene), Cyanoacrylate can make particularly strong bonds and works with a wider range of materials and mixed materials (e.g. brass to plastic). Accelerators make the bond instantaneous, but can burn due to the chemical reaction (and since it is glue, if it's burning you, it's also stuck on you). Some people also use it in paper modeling as it will soak into paper and make it hard and plastic like (I personally use nail polish for that effect).
• A vent hood
• If nasty chemicals and fumes are involved you may consider this. Spray paints and some of the nastier solvents (such as acetone) can be problematic indoors. The internet can provide many DIY designs. There is some science to this, so check out user results. If on the other hand you stick to brushes and fewer volatiles, you should be ok without one (just watch for spills).
• Some miscellany: sanding paper, sanding blocks, and filler
• We did mention the use specialized sanding tools that can bend around parts, but generally a means to sand from medium to extra fine is useful in trimming mold seams and joint seams. The use of a block is important, but you can make these yourself by using a bit of wood or foam when it has to conform to a shape. You can even use nail files and for finer grit, glue finer paper onto it. In plastic modeling you may also need this to sand down filled in spots. All this sanding is often in conjunction with plastic filler putty used to fill in gaps in seams or smooth out joins. Putty is available in most hobby shops, but curiously my local hobby shop guy pointed out you can get this cheaper from the auto supply shop as the small ding filler putty (not to be confused with the 2 part can of patch resin).

Oh, something we did forget which is both trivial and very important: If you buy a kit that was molded (plastic, resin, etc), wash it in dish washing detergent to get the mold release agent (grease) off of the parts before you start working on it. This will greatly improve the hold of glues and cements as well as paint and paint coverage.

Where to go and look

To end this posting I just want to set out some links to find more information about participating in this hobby.

• Dedicated web sites for SF/F modeling hobbyists such as Starship Modeler, CultTVman, Ninfinger's model page and Fantastic Plastic to name a few. A good starting point for paper modelers (or card modelers) is ss42.com/free toys there is also a FAQ list that may be somewhat dated, particularly in outlinks, but still valid on other points at www.cardfaq.org.
• Discussion fora such as those at starshipmodeler.net, hobbytalk's science fiction area, zealot.com or beyondthesprues.com are great for SF modeling discussion. The movie prop specific RPF.com for the more adventurous scratch builder provides excellent reference information. For paper, there is the zealot.com's paper section, papermodelers.com, and the yahoo groups for space and scifi modeling. Others are specific discussions on various subjects such as things Gerry Anderson at EagleTransporter.com, or alternative histories (WhatIfModelers.com) 
• Items can be found on Amazon.com of course, but also some more specialized sites such as megahobby.com and hobbylinc.com. Of course it is always good to find the local brick and mortar hobby shops (search using google or mapquest).
• Magazines exist that cover this hobby niche, namely Amazing Figure Modeler which focuses on comic book and fantasy figure models and sculptures, and Sci-Fi and Fantasy Modeler in the UK, but available in the US as well (and I presume internationally). 
• General modeling techniques are generously published on the net. Check out internetmodeler.com, scalemodelguide.com, or IPMS (International Plastic Scale Modeler's Society), or look for your local chapter and meet actual modelers.
• Late edit: While most local modeling chapters will have at least some Sci-Fi/Fantasy displays at their shows, there are two cons that I know about (there might be more) that specifically deal in this area. One is Wonderfest in Louiville, KY, and JerseyFest in New Jersey. 

The truth of the matter is that it is hard to give a complete picture of making miniatures and models from one panel session and one blog post (this one is already a tad large). Again it is a question of satisfaction with the finished product; you can pretty much make do with the appropriate glue/cement, a hobby knife, bottle paints and brushes (and even dispense with the latter if the subject is pre-painted). You can visit general modeling sites or books (almost every library has books on model railroading and a lot of the techniques discussed there apply here) for more advanced techniques such as weathering, oil washing, decal placement, painting, finishing clear coats, airbrushing techniques, dioramas, etc.
      Well, I hope this gets people interested in the hobby, or if they are modeling interested in this niche, I also hope that this is looked up by those that were interested, but didn't make it to the session because of Masquerade (hec, my daughter was in it and I missed it).

My cardstock Narcissus which was on display at the session(will be downloadable soon...promise)

     

More Flying 'Round: real saucers (sort of) - Part 2

When researching this topic, as mentioned earlier, there was more stuff to this that I could confortably deal with in one post. If we look at it from the pre-history of flight to the great revolutionary period of development with the second world war, there is plenty to look at. While many of the "round" aircraft of the first half of the 20th century were often not much more than curiosities, the round shape would be revisited, sometimes to take advantage of some of the more surprising aerodynamic effects of controlled airflow.

The Cold War

Much of the aviation research work generate by the Luftwaffe in World War II was captured by the Allies after the wall, as well as equipment and perhaps more importantly personnel. Fans of a genre referred to as Luft'46, often extol the amazing performance of many of the aircraft designs that were being put to paper and could have theoretically been put into production by the Germans if the war had continued. The had by this time already designed ocean crossing jet bombers, supersonic fighters, transcontinental missiles and advanced tactical missiles such guided air to surface missiles. In practice, it is doubtful they could have implemented the wide scope of proposals given the dire situation of Germany at the time. It is telling that in spite of all the captured material, very few of these designs made it more or less directly from those blueprints to a production model in either the Soviet Union or the United States (and yes, there are a few exceptions). Still, a great deal of their ideas were applied such as swept wings and engine layouts.
     The Cold War created a golden age of military R&D. It would in a very real sense be undone by the great cost of the weapons systems being developed. However in the 50s, when enough time had passed to make anything developed at the end of World War II thoroughly obsolete, it seemed money would be thrown at any vaguely promising advanced idea.

Among the many research air vehicles developed during the Cold War, several of the shapes tried out for vertical take off had vaguely saucer-like shapes.  In the end, none proved truly practical.

     The Heikel annular wing designs lived on in some post war designs carried out by the allies after the war for high performance vertical take-off aircraft (Note: to what extent isn't certain, since the ability to take off vertically by basically aiming propulsive forces down should be fairly obvious). The French Coleoptere was very reminiscent of the Heinkel design. It consisted of a very powerful jet engine housed in a fuselage surrounded by its  wing. On it's test stand it gives off a very futuristic look. In spite of this, it hardly ever truly flew. The craft was flown tethered and found difficult to control. Still, untethered flights were attempted, but it crashed early in its development program. It looked really cool, but it flew like a brick balanced on a skewer.
     The US also tried tail sitter designs, although not in that form, and while they did fly, they were found to be nearly impossible to land. They did try other forms of VTOL, such as simple fan powered hovering. The Army tried various designs that mounted powerful fans to lift infantrymen and behave as a kind of flying jeep or platform. Some of these must have been positively frightening as the infantryman/pilot would stand just inches above the rapidly whirling blades (the DeLackner DH-5 Aerocycle and the Hiller VZ-1 Pawnee). In spite of this, the practicality of such as craft was fairly limited and did not offset traditional light helicopters or ground vehicles.

The Coanda Effect machines

Henri Coanda was a Romanian engineer who invented the first jet airplane in 1910(!). In the process of testing his aircraft he observed the effect that would carry his name. It is interesting to note that he had the presence of mind to observe that the engine's flaming jet exhaust began to wrap around the flame deflectors and hit the fuselage of his very inflammable aircraft while he was simultaneously crashing it. To put it briefly (and over simply), a rapidly flowing fluid will tend to adhere over the surface it is flowing. You can try it out by feeling the air flow around a can of soda when you blow on it.
     As he examined the effect, he postulated that he could create a new method of propulsion that would not make use of a propeller because the rapidly flowing air would create a region of low pressure. If the effect was created above the craft it could generate sufficient lift to fly the craft without wings. He explored the effect and proposed a saucer like aircraft that would use the Coanda effect alone to fly. During the war he continued his research and afterwards patented the idea as a flying saucer.
     The idea was picked up by a couple of aerospace companies, but perhaps more notably by the Avro Canada aviation company. The idea was to create a craft that could use the Coanda effect to lift off vertically, and once at altitude would shift to forward flight using its basic shape as the airfoil. The most ambitious of these was to use an extremely thin saucer like wing to allow the craft supersonic performance. Avro first had to test out the idea and it did so with an early subsonic prototype called the Avrocar.

The Coanda Effect describes how a stream of rapidly moving air will follow the contours of the shape it is flowing over. A coanda effect craft will achieve lift by blowing air pressurized by some mechanism out the sides of the craft. This air curves around the periphery and accelerates surrounding air creating a large volume of low pressure above it. Note that the Avrocar's jet exhaust slot is around the very edges of the craft. The intake for the engine is NOT the main source of lift, although it does contribute. Instead the rapidly flowing air from the edges pulls the air around it creating low pressure over the entire upper surface.

     The Avrocar VZ-9 was developed using US Army funding (as part of the flying jeep program) and the US Air Force, to study the use of the Coanda Effect for a future VTOL fighter. Unlike a conventional jet aircraft, these Coanda Effect aircraft were intended to fire the exhaust radially around the edge of the aircraft. This would create the rapidly flowing stream of air around the edge of the body creating low pressure above it and high pressure below. In practice, the aircraft never proved easy to fly. At low altitudes, the craft's lift was augmented by the ground effect of the exhaust gas being trapped underneath it. As it rose, the gases would escape unevenly out one side or another causing serious instability. It appeared that the benefits of using this effect would be much harder to realize than at first thought (added to the difficulty of developing a suitable radial jet engine). While more advanced versions of the design were proposed, in the end the Avrocar never flew more than a few feet off the ground and was canceled.
     In spite of the failure of various Coanda Effect saucers, the effect is used to enhance the lift of various aircraft by controlling the flow of air over wings and control surfaces.

Dream Saucers

Various designers have proposed serious designs for flying saucer like craft. Some perhaps inspired by the popular accounts of UFOs, others by the lure of VTOL and new ways of flying. Unfortunately, after the war the economic costs of creating radical new aircraft designs meant that unlike the inventors of earlier days, many of these ideas remained as nothing more than paper drawings and mock-ups.

    French aviator Rene-Couzinet designed what I considered one of the prettiest aircraft ever, the Couzinet Arc-en-Ciel. In 1933 this aircraft made the first non-stop crossing from Africa to South America. Couzinet's life though was apparently marked with the kind of up and downs associated with very headstrong designers. Somehow he ended up in Brazil after the war designing his dream aircraft, a flying saucer. The design really consisted of using the circular planform to hold airfoil blades along the perimeter in two counter rotating rings to lift the craft vertically. Once airborne, these short blade sections would not be a hindrance to horizontal flight the way full sized helicopter blades are. While he did build working models and mock-ups of his design, he never acquired the funding to build a full sized version. The situation apparently weighed heavily upon him as he and his wife committed suicide.

     The Weygers Discopter is another idea that was presented with much art by its inventor, Alexander Weyger. The basic premise was in essence to replace the open rotating blades of a helicopter with a set enclosed within a disk shaped fuselage (akin to the FW Rochen proposal), The smaller personal transport enclosed the passenger at the center of the disk. Plans for a commuter version show passengers enclosed in individual pods along the periphery of the disk. While never developed in his lifetime, he appears to have been happily involved in many other fulfilling projects in his life.
     One of the downsides of many of these designs when compared to helicopters is that they are very limited in their flight capacity due to engine failure (helicopters can parachute down with their rotors through a property known as "autorotation"). Paul Moller ameliorates this problem by using many cross-linked motors in his design so there is no catastrophe due to a single engine failure. He is perhaps one of the more famous designers of personal flying saucers. This is because he has frequently been mentioned in media as the creator of a future flying car. His designs use multiple ducted fans to generate lift. While his Skycar design is not saucer shaped, he has tried out a variety of his ideas using a series of saucer like prototype craft culminating in his current M200 Neuera craft. Moller International has continued to develop these machines for over 30 years and may yet enter the mass market.
     Airship industries which created a market for lighter than air travel commercially in the 80s with their Skyship blimps initially produced a saucer shape airship (rigid?) designed to minimize turning moments on the craft caused by cross-winds. In the end the company went on to a series of more conventional blimps having made no more than a scale flying model version of the ship. Pictures of the original saucer skyship model frequents many UFO pages out there on the web.

Lightships

The light ship may perhaps be the closest we can get to flying space saucers with current technology. The idea is to use the shape as a focusing mirror in some designs to focus the light energy of a laser to superheat the air and thus propel the aircraft in a very rapid series of bursts. Models have been flown successfully and it does present a theoretical model for a ship that can attain very high velocities without having to carry it's own fuel. The shape has also been considered as a shape that can receive transmitted microwave energy. This energy can be used similarly to superheat air and thus achieve extremely high velocities. While they couldn't make do without using some reaction mass for the last part of the journey outside the atmosphere, they can make use of the beamed energy to heat it potentially making them extremely efficient orbital boosters.

Links and Resources

Many are the same from the last post, but in addition, here's a few more

• Tail-Sitter VTOL projects, sometimes referred to as "pogos" including the infamous Coleoptere
• The US Army's VZ series which included various flying platforms
• Henri Coanda information page at Florida International University
• The VZ-9 Avrocar can be visited at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton. Their website has the factsheet. 
• The Discopter site which continues to promote Weyger's craft
• Moller International, the corporate site for Moller's aircraft and engineering work.
• A short video excerpt which describes lightships very well on youtube.
• and yet again: Identified Flying Objects - An interesting set of articles and links to various saucer projects, particularly those tied to VTOL.
• and a link back to the previous Saucerful of Spaceships post

Flying 'Round: real saucers (sort of) - Part 1

A look at some real saucer and roundish aircraft

I recently picked up a book on weird aircraft at the bargain bin. The book could use some serious editing, but it did go over a variety of interesting designs that are not often mentioned in aviation books - often with good reason. Many of these I have also seen around the web, particularly since I'm fascinated with designs that didn't go anywhere. There was also a comment on one of my blogs about a real saucer that I decided to follow up on (the comment is on the wrong page somehow as it should really be part of the "Saucerfull" post, but anyway.) It is an interesting story, but nevertheless not that unique in aviation history, that is the idea of a flying disk. It is also an idea that predates the classic flying saucer story from 1947.

The more I prepared this post, the bigger it got, so I'm going to break this into separate parts to make it easier to digest (particularly for me).

What is a round wing?

There is some variation into what may be considered a round wing. One could say that it is of a circular wing planform (looking from top down) or a flat ring like (circular) wing planform. Disk wings are also described as low aspect ratio wings, meaning that the width of the wing (the chord) is large when compared to the wing's length. The surprising benefit of this type of arrangement is that it provides a considerable amount of lift at low speeds and high angle of attack (the angle of the wings with respect to the airflow). As a result these aircraft could fly at very low speeds and were attractive designs in the era pre-dating helicopters.
     Another type of round shaped wing comes from annular wing design. In this case the wing is encircles the fuselage. It is sometimes flattened out and made boxier for a shape that resembles a stretched box kite. This general design is also referred to as a closed wing design.
     A variation of round shaped flying machines is perhaps closer to what we would think of as a flying saucer. In a sense, these are wingless, because while the shape is generally considered to generate a certain amount of lift in flight, the main aspect of the shape is to house primary lifting devices that operate symmetrically. The more traditional lift devices make use of exhaust jets or ducted fans of some sort to redirect a mass of air directly downwards to counteract gravity. A more sophisticated method makes use of the Coanda effect to create an area of low pressure over the surface to lift the craft. More esoteric methods described are sometimes more whimsical than practical, such as electromagnetic levitation. One practical method that has been investigated is the usage of the shape as an energy receiver in the form of microwave or laser energy which can then be used or focused to superheat air at the base of the disc to generate thrust.

 Flying Pans and Pancakes

DaVinci's Helicopter
The prototypical flying saucer?

It is recalled that 19th century Yale students indulged in the aerodynamics of flying disks as they threw either the empty pie platters or cookie (can?) lids embossed with the name of the baking company; the Frisbie Pie Company of New Haven, CT. The shape of the these plates imparted some lift, but spinning it gave it the stability to maintain a positive flight attitude through its flight. While there are some images of spinning circular wings, the mechanics of spinning a wing simply to impart stability seems not to have been thought the best way to achieve that result (exception being Guido Fallei's design on the cover of the Sept. 1930 Popular Mechanics?). On the other hand, some inventors looked at the possible added strength from wider or ring like wings as a possible solution of building wings with enough lift area to heave up their weight and not collapse at the same time. The thing to remember is that in the early history of practical manned flight (and particularly pre-flight), there was generally a poor understanding of the mechanics and forces involved in flight, so in truth when some of these designs proved effective it was perhaps more a matter of luck than actual thoughtful, researched, design. The British aviation pioneer George Cayley achieved some success making small gliders with large kite shaped wings which were rather long in chord and narrow in span. Along these lines other 19th century inventors created saucer like designs such as John Wootton and Alphonse Pénaud, (1850 - 1880).

George Cayley's early gliders featured kite-like wings in various configurations (bi-planes and triplanes). One design for a helicopter featured saucer-like rotors. John Wootton patented a flying machine that operated like a helicopter and featured a large fixed circular parachute wing for safety. Alphonse Penaud designed a very modern looking flying machine with a large oval wing with engineer Gauchot in 1874. This last design was refined by 1876 with many modern features such as retractable landing gear and automatic controls. Penaud built many models that featured his forward concepts, but was never able to get financing to build a full sized version of his design.

     The advent of actual flying machines did not initially discourage inventors from trying unique and imaginative variations on flying machines. This was due in part to the availability of the resources in lightweight materials and powerplants that finally made these plans viable. There was also a lack of specific knowledge of aerodynamics that might have been used to better analyze these aircraft. It has also been noted that the Wright brother's aggressive protection of their patents did encourage investors to find "different" ways of flying. Louis Bleriot and Gabriel Voisin for instance working in Europe had very sketchy information about the Wright's success (in fact many in Europe doubted they had really flown at all). They chose an annular design for their biplane creating a sturdy structure for their floatplane. In the end, the design did not work and after some modification both designers went their separate, but ultimately successful, ways.

The Bleriot III used an annular or closed wing shape. It was eventually abandoned. The MCormick-Ronne circular aircraft did manage to fly eventually around 1912, but also proved a dead end. The Lee-Richards design of 1913 was a development from the earlier biplane design.

The McCormick-Ronne "Umbrella Plane" or "Cycloplane" had an interesting development history. Originally based on designs by William Romme, it received funding from Harold McCormick of farming machinery fame, and the millionaire John D. Rockefeller Jr. starting in 1910. The aircraft's basic design made use of a wing roughly in the shape of a regular polygon, held on a set of radially distributed spokes which in turn were supported by a large centrally mounted mast. Other aspects of the craft changed with time, such as the position of the controls, and the propeller and engine assembly which was variously either pusher, puller, and sometimes connected to the engine by a long shaft. At some point Charles Vought worked on the project as a young engineering graduate. Vought would later found a company that would revisit the "round" airplane concept. In the end the Umbrella Plane proved to be a dead end and was apparently abandoned around 1913.
     The J.G.A. Kitchen, G. T. Richards, and Cedric Lee designed aircraft that used a circular wing planform. Initially Kitchen created a circular biplane which was refined with Richard's help. Disagreement between the designers resulted in subsequent work being developed by Richards with Lee. The Richard Lee Monoplane went through various versions (1,2,3) from 1912 up to 1914. The final version crashed with Lee at the controls, who managed to escape with minor injuries, but the aircraft was a total wreck.

    Stephen Nemeth's, another "Umbrella Plane" built in 1934, mounted a circular wing above a standard fuselage looking like some of over-sized parasol and hence the name. It could take off and land in very short spaces due to that low aspect ratio wing. The circular wing was also only 15 feet in diameter making it easy to store in a hanger "not much larger than the ordinary garage" as the Modern Mechanics of June 1934 noted.

The Nemeth "Umbrella Plane" of 1934. If you can find newsreels of it, it flies surprisingly like a gyrocopter

Some of the more notable aircraft of this type were developed by C.L. Snyder, a podiatrist. He noted the interesting gliding properties of heel lifts and decided to try creating an aircraft around that shape. He did indeed employ actual aviation engineers in his company, the Arup Manufacturing Co.,  so the wing design was not totally based on an artifact of shoe manufacturing. Still, you can see the heel in the designs. It was developed through several models, Arup S-1 thru S-4 and even one off-shoot created by a former Arup engineer Raoul Hoffman who designed the similar Hoffman Flying Wing.
     All these aircraft show remarkable STOL flight characteristics and unique flying characteristics such as maneuvering at slow speeds. In fact newsreels of the craft show them taking off with very little space and practically dropping straight down for landings with rolls of only a few feet. The claim that it could take off and land from your own backyard does not look far fetched.

Strangely enough, the Nemeth and Arup aircraft did not really capture the interest of manufacturers that could have marketed and mass produced the aircraft. Perhaps it was the result of the fairly specific performance envelope at the time. They were also not the only ones to create such designs, the moth-like Aubron-Payen AP-10 being an example. While these aircraft did exhibit remarkable STOL (Short Take Off & Landing) capabilities, they were not that unique for a world dominated by relatively slow, fast climbing biplanes that could operate from small unpaved fields. The contemporary autogyro (precursor to helicopters) could match that performance and even show limited vertical take off capacity. More effectively marketed by Cierva (the inventor) and Pitcairn, autogyros were not limited to one-off prototypes.

World War II

     The U.S. Navy has a strong interest in aircraft that could easily take off and land in short spaces. They considered a design proposed by Charles H. Zimmerman from Chance-Vought. Zimmerman reportedly visited the Arup Company and investigated using the combined effect of the disk-like wing with air blown at high speed from the propellers to enhance lift. Test models of the design were shown to rise practically vertically with good control. Moreover, the design could potentially have fighter-like performance. The prototype V-173 was flown several times and showed much promise. The fighter prototype was the Chance-Vought XF5U-1. It's development was protracted and not completed by the end of the war. After the war it was undergoing engine tests prior to flight tests when the program was canceled. It was a victim of the jet age, as most cutting edge propeller designs were at the end of World War II.
     When talking about World War II saucer aircraft, some mention must be made of Nazi projects. It is true that several strange and unusual aircraft designs were produced by German aircraft designers during the war. It is also true that even stranger, futuristic designs were still on the drawing boards (or actually just left there) at the war's end. They had developed rocket and jet technology to the limits of engineering capacities at the time and in many ways were considerably more advanced than what the Allies had developed by that time. Even so, the stories of highly advanced "flying saucer" designs based on advanced electromagnetic devices or supersonic turbines have to be taken with a relatively large sized grain of salt.
     One of the few documented German "saucers" was fairly conventional and along the lines of Arup and Zimmerman. The Sack AS-6, had a truly circular planform. It was powered by a small engine and in that form would have been limited to simple utility work such as reconnaissance or field courier. Beyond research into that type of wing,  nothing really came from that design.

Various World War II era "round" aircraft (*design only, ** not flown). The Payen 112 (based on the PA-22 racer) was not round, but was perhaps an introduction of low-aspect ratio wings in the presently more familiar delta wing. Of these only the Eshelman Flying Flounder, the Vought V-173, and the Sack AS-6 actually flew. The XF5U was cancelled before flight, whereas the Boeing 390 and FW-Rochen were never built

     Other designs appear to be nothing more than quick paper studies: the Focke-Wulf Rochen that would have hidden a lift fan inside it's teardrop shaped lifting body fuselage, and the Heinkel Wespe and Lerche II designs which were tail-sitters with annular wings. It is doubtful that there was any way these technologically advanced craft could go much beyond theoretical work at the time. After the war much of this information fell into Allied hands, and truth be told, many of these designs proved impractical even with the huge military research budgets of the Cold War. As far as anything else, I really don't want to delve into some of the crazier rumors out there.

Next time:  More human flying saucers...

Links and Resources for Part I

There is of course many areas on the Internet to find out about flying saucers, real and imaginary. Unfortunately, due to their connection to alien technology, they can be pretty odd. In the case of the speculative human saucers, they can also be rather odd (particularly the Nazi ones, which seem to be in a mythological class by themselves). If one can overlook some of the personal points of some of these sites one can find out quite a bit on the real designs. The grain of salt comes when looking at designs that may have been nothing more than a sketch on a piece of paper by people with little aeronautical expertise that's been lost for decades.

• Celtic Cowboy's Odd Wing Gallery - a collection of various images of odd aircraft including many round disk and annular/closed types. It is also fairly extensive with respect to the really early craft.
• Helicopter Designs at Aviastar.org - Contains various articles on helicopters, but for this subject the interesting one are the really early designs. You can browse the site to see other disk like shapes.
• Short article at Stanford on low aspect ratio wings and high angles of attack
• One of the few spots I found more detailed information about the Kitchen-Lee-Richards aircraft was located on this post and at the Russian site flyingmachines.org, the Kitchen biplane and the Lee-Richards monoplane.