The discussion of the Alien series of films and the props used in them is the aim, but if it's got Big Bugs and Big Guns, then they are welcome too!





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Question on Drake costume
PostPosted: Wed Dec 25, 2019 7:34 am 

Service Number: A05/TQ2.0.32141E1
Country: United States
Did he wear a flak jacket under the Steadicam vest?

_________________
The impossible takes a while longer and goes over budget too...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:09 am 
Officers - Making simple s**t hard since 1775
User avatar

Location: Boston, Lincolnshire, UK.
Service Number: A07/TQ1.0.52135E1
Country: United Kingdom
Yes!

drake.jpg
drake.jpg [ 43.39 KiB | Viewed 2115 times ]

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Question on Drake costume
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 9:58 am 

Service Number: A05/TQ2.0.32141E1
Country: United States
Eek another museum piece. Looks like about a 100 for the piece. What have others used for more easily obtained equivalents?

_________________
The impossible takes a while longer and goes over budget too...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 9:59 am 

Service Number: A05/TQ2.0.32141E1
Country: United States
https://www.amazon.com/Mil-Tec-Ranger-V ... 548&sr=8-8

This looks really close.

_________________
The impossible takes a while longer and goes over budget too...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:13 am 

Service Number: A05/TQ2.0.32141E1
Country: United States
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/ ... 1937184278

It appears the lower armor piece was some sort of m53 short flak proetective cover. The torso protector did not appear on the m69 flak vest.

_________________
The impossible takes a while longer and goes over budget too...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:16 am 

Service Number: A05/TQ2.0.32141E1
Country: United States
But the bottom part looks like this:
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/ ... -m-53-usmc

But it is like it was covered in a protective wrapping or cover due to the arm + gun design.

_________________
The impossible takes a while longer and goes over budget too...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 7:31 pm 
Officers - Making simple s**t hard since 1775
User avatar

Location: Boston, Lincolnshire, UK.
Service Number: A07/TQ1.0.52135E1
Country: United Kingdom
This is what I have...

https://www.sofmilitary.co.uk/m69-flak- ... plica.html

Apparently, the current Israeli army flack vest is very similar.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 11:40 pm 

Service Number: A05/TQ2.0.32141E1
Country: United States
SimonT wrote:
This is what I have...

https://www.sofmilitary.co.uk/m69-flak- ... plica.html

Apparently, the current Israeli army flack vest is very similar.


And actually effective I would venture to say. The issue with the M69 was that although it did not stop weapons fire, it was good at stopping shrapnel and fragments from blasts. Its predecessor the M53 used in WWII was just about in the same boat and the M69 was an improvement based upon the original design.

As far as I can tell the top was M69 and the lower torso portion was M53 with some sort of protective covering or wrapping.

_________________
The impossible takes a while longer and goes over budget too...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:37 am 
THAT guy
User avatar

Location: Virginia
Service Number: A03/TQ2.0.02146E1
Country: United States
knoxvilles_joker wrote:
But the bottom part looks like this:
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/ ... -m-53-usmc

But it is like it was covered in a protective wrapping or cover due to the arm + gun design.


The lower portions of the 3A steadicam were bulked up with extra padding and, as Jeanette has stated in video interviews, they were basically "duct taped into them". The extra 'duct tape wrapped padding' is visible in many images.

Fitting Polaroid with unaltered 3A Steadicam vest (notice bare right hip. left side/hip may have un-covered padding attached?)
Attachment:
Drake Continuity.jpg
Drake Continuity.jpg [ 165.18 KiB | Viewed 2003 times ]


Continuity Polaroid with extra padding (covered in black duct tape)
Attachment:
Drake costume polaroid.jpg
Drake costume polaroid.jpg [ 178.94 KiB | Viewed 2003 times ]


Another image where the duct tape wrapped additional padding is visible (more so on Vaz, but the bottom hanging out on drake).
Attachment:
Duct tape waists.jpg
Duct tape waists.jpg [ 206.24 KiB | Viewed 2003 times ]


Never forget how 'screen accurate' black duct tape is!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Question on Drake costume
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:51 am 

Service Number: A05/TQ2.0.32141E1
Country: United States
Definitely looks like duct tape wrapped m53 torso lower armor pieces. That said, easily replicated with foam and lots of duct tape. Now to find dimensions...

_________________
The impossible takes a while longer and goes over budget too...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:09 am 
Galaxy-hopping garbage man

Country: United Kingdom
knoxvilles_joker wrote:
The issue with the M69 was that although it did not stop weapons fire, it was good at stopping shrapnel and fragments from blasts. Its predecessor the M53 used in WWII was just about in the same boat and the M69 was an improvement based upon the original design.

As a side note - Even modern flak vests won't stop incoming rounds. Flak vests are designed to stop flak. Bullet-proof vests are designed to stop (certain calibres of) bullets. Same for the fragmentation helmets currently issued, especially since the original CONARC spec for 5.56mm included the requirement that it punches through a US steel helmet at 500yds.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:23 pm 

Service Number: A05/TQ2.0.32141E1
Country: United States
Ttaskmaster wrote:
knoxvilles_joker wrote:
The issue with the M69 was that although it did not stop weapons fire, it was good at stopping shrapnel and fragments from blasts. Its predecessor the M53 used in WWII was just about in the same boat and the M69 was an improvement based upon the original design.

As a side note - Even modern flak vests won't stop incoming rounds. Flak vests are designed to stop flak. Bullet-proof vests are designed to stop (certain calibres of) bullets. Same for the fragmentation helmets currently issued, especially since the original CONARC spec for 5.56mm included the requirement that it punches through a US steel helmet at 500yds.


Correct. Level 4 armor and blast proof armor is currently used to stop high caliber rounds. Lesser level ratings are used based upon need and expectations of the environment and ability to hide/fit underneath clothing.

I remember coworkers in the late 90s recounting tests on spiderweb based armor that could deflect 50 caliber rounds, only leaving a scorch mark. I think the issue with such an armor setup would be cost and ability to mass produce and that would probably be why we have not heard about it as of yet. That and the fact the trauma from impact would be just as likely to kill or severely wound.

The kicker right now is that Russian FPS showed a DU core .22LR round that could punch through 3 inch steel without issue. And there are kevlar tipped bullets. So armor is not an end all, it just lessens risk some. Such high end rounds are restricted to the military and police with few expceptions when folks can get paper work approved to own such things.

In the mechwarrior universe they had ablative laser armor. As far as what the future holds it is really hard to tell. I would say once laser weapons start becoming a thing the whole armor approach will change.

Regardless the armor in Aliens is very much an iconic thing. And also it was a unique creature of its time that has inspired so many things over the years. Speculating on the armor origins helps when you are trying to recreate an iconic item.

And thank you for the information as it is a very valid point to make here.

_________________
The impossible takes a while longer and goes over budget too...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:50 pm 
Galaxy-hopping garbage man

Country: United Kingdom
knoxvilles_joker wrote:
Speculating on the armor origins helps when you are trying to recreate an iconic item.

Well, most militaries issued frag/flak armour (sometimes with optional bullet proof ceramic plates and the like) because, statistically, shrapnel-spewing artillery has always been the biggest killer on a battlefield and thus the more demanding threat. Even today, in various sandy theatres, the biggest concern is not bullets but IEDs and the like.
If it's all about stopping bullets, there will always be another more powerful armour-piercing round available (or made available) to defeat the body armour. But while your enemy could always equip his guys with .950 JDJ rounds, there's a physical limit to how much body armour you can actually wear... and wearing flak diapers like the M53 is always horrid!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: