did the flying sub have a name???
-
winterview — 14 years ago(October 07, 2011 07:52 PM)
As I recall, the flying sub was nuclear powered. In real life, Convair was experimenting with a nuclear reactor on a B-36 bomber, and Admiral Rickover was banging out new and improved nuclear submarine designs every week, so a sci-fi series filmed in the early 60s could very easily have blended the 2 programs into one 'plausible' device, the flying sub.
One little point, however, despite his brillance, why oh why did Admiral Nelson not put the hatch for the flying sub ON TOP of the Seaview instead of the bottom? The Seaview sank about every 3rd episode or so, having the flying sub pop out the top would have been a pretty handy feature! -
rockmail — 10 years ago(April 18, 2015 07:40 AM)
A hatch on top means the flying sub would have to launch straight into the air if the Seaview was surfaced, and I don't believe it had the capability to do so. It was a sub first, and a flying wing second. Hence, it has to sink down into the water first, and a bottom hatch was mandatory.
The best solution would be a side or rear/top hatch so the flying sub could slide out no matter the position of the seaview. -
traitorjoe666 — 10 years ago(November 07, 2015 10:55 PM)
Another TV series,'UFO' had,amongst it's array of vehicles,a hybrid sub called Skydiver.The front part could detach and break the surface as a conventional fighter.
One nice touch they did for SkyDiver was the name and its placement on the vehicle, at least on the port side.
It printed was right at the "seam", so when "Sky" would take off, "Diver" would be left behind.
Of course, on the starboard side, it'd have to be named DiverSky for that to work. -
-
Darthfrodo58 — 12 years ago(November 17, 2013 12:24 AM)
I believe he was referring to the hatch FOR the flying sub (the one under the front of the Seaview) not the hatch ON the flying sub itself.
I didn't know about the back hatch though. Thanks for pointing that out.
And now, my beloved disciples. The moment of truth the needle of love -
joystar5879 — 10 years ago(March 07, 2016 01:49 PM)
I would have called it "STINGRAY", because it looked like one. I would also have given it a technological version of the living Stingray's camouflage process.
It would be right up the Nelson's alley, because he was a Marine Biologist, and I can certainly see the dastardly Theo Marcuse trying to steal the process for
"Political" reasons.
I do hope he won't upset Henry -
WhiteWolf_McBride — 9 years ago(April 13, 2016 12:44 AM)
Naming the sub 'Stingray' was not feasible, as The Andersons had already used that name for their SuperMarionation series/sub (that sub is quite nice too)
And a similar real-word sub existed - Jacques Cousteau's 'Flying Saucer' disc-shaped exploration sub. It didn't fly, but travelled rather well in the water.
As for its take-offs/landings: The exit is much like the way a Polaris missile exits the water after launch from a sub. But I agree with the flaws in the landing - the water would be too dense, and the chairs would probably be ripped from their mounts. Even if they had good combat-type couches, the restraint straps would severely bruise the passengers. Now why didn't they have it land like a seaplane, and then dive like a sub? MUCH more logical! Ah well, it ~is~ Science Fiction, after all. -
joystar5879 — 9 years ago(April 13, 2016 01:10 AM)
Very interesting, but at the time, I was barely 11 years old. I didn't know anything about any "Andersons" or "SuperMarionation". I just knew pictures of Rays that showed up in magazines. Still,even in an alternate universe, The name SEAVIEW is perfect: I'd have hated to see Nelson's magnificent Submarine named after a Seahorse or a Squid (VBG)
I do hope he won't upset Henry