# R2 Galileo/AMT Galileo comparison



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

As the title says, this is a comparison of the old (1974) AMT Galileo shuttlecraft to the new R2 kit that just came out.

As I've done before, I'll just post photo's next to each other.

First the boxes, The new kits box is MUCH larger than the old kit:










And it fills the box!










The instructions are about the same size:



















The decals are obviously much bigger:










Although, when watching "The Galileo Seven" it shows the Columbus as the number 2 shuttle. Here the choices are 
3,6,or 9.

Ok, what everyone has been waiting for, The Parts!



















The new kit has many more parts, even without the interior.
If you look at krlee's or Captain Han Solo's build you can see the quality of the parts. If you look at my 2 builds of the old kit you can see exactly the opposite! 


The new kit is considerably larger:




















Well done Jamie and R2! Thank you!


----------



## Buc (Jan 20, 1999)

Love side by side comparisons! Good job!


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

what ^ he said


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Thanks for doing this, man! I was really curious about how the two compared.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Thanks! 

I'm glad you guys like it.


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

The comparison is, there's no comparison.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

If you don't mind the intrusion, here is a comparison of the new kit box against the original 1974 release.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Trek Ace said:


> If you don't mind the intrusion, here is a comparison of the new kit box against the original 1974 release.
> 
> View attachment 309842


The original box art is better...the kit, not so much.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Trek Ace, Intrude away!
Thats a great box comparison!

Captain Han Solo, Very well put!


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

This is most disappointing. They made such a big deal about how they re-sized it to accommodate the interior, but there's no interior. Thus, it's absolutely _*NOT*_ 1/32 scale, no matter how you slice it. Scale is the ratio between the real item and the model. The stated size in the show was 24'. The actual set piece is 22'. At 11" long it's 1/25 scale for a 22' long shuttle. This is OK if you're a car modeller who wants to display it with his car models, but it's absolutely no good if you want to do a 1/32 scale diorama with the figures from the _Enterprise_ Bridge kit. At least the original AMT kit was somewhat closer at 1/37.5 scale,bad as it was. I started a 1/32 scale scratchbuild 20 years ago intended as a kit master for MMI where I was a partner and was looking forward to a styrene kit, but this is useless. I'm usually a big booster for Round 2/Polar Lights but I no longer have a lot of faith in them for this frank betrayal.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Owen, I understand your disappointment and I respect your right to express it, but please remember, this is just a hobby. I'm just thrilled to finally have a more accurate representation of the TOS shuttlecraft. I don't really care about what scale it really is, just as long it's proportions and shape are more accurate to the studio prop. Given all of that, your work with MMI sounded very promising - what happened to it? (Inquiring minds want to know!)

Larry


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Harsh words for such a nice kit. I understand your thought process, maybe we should start referring to these kits of fictional craft by the length instead of the scale.
Like the eagles. They have scales but people refer to them by the length.

None of these craft can have the inside and outside rectified. It's fiction, call it whatever scale you want and move on.
It's such a nice kit, while I have no inside information, from what Jamie has said if it sells well an interior kit will be seriously considered. I'm guessing the interior kit will be VERY nice when it comes. Remember Gary Kerr designed the kit with an interior, the floor has seat mounts molded in, The main kit CAD files have the interior parts mapped out.

If you can't wait, Randy Copper has what looks like a very nice resin kit for it.

Your milage may vary, but I am VERY happy to have such a nice and accurate kit of the Galileo available after all these years!


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

Owen E Oulton said:


> This is most disappointing. They made such a big deal about how they re-sized it to accommodate the interior, but there's no interior. Thus, it's absolutely _*NOT*_ 1/32 scale, no matter how you slice it. Scale is the ratio between the real item and the model. The stated size in the show was 24'. The actual set piece is 22'. At 11" long it's 1/25 scale for a 22' long shuttle. This is OK if you're a car modeller who wants to display it with his car models, but it's absolutely no good if you want to do a 1/32 scale diorama with the figures from the _Enterprise_ Bridge kit. At least the original AMT kit was somewhat closer at 1/37.5 scale,bad as it was. I started a 1/32 scale scratchbuild 20 years ago intended as a kit master for MMI where I was a partner and was looking forward to a styrene kit, but this is useless. I'm usually a big booster for Round 2/Polar Lights but I no longer have a lot of faith in them for this frank betrayal.


ruh roh

I know nothing!

but, perhaps the 1/32 scale designation is scaling down of what an actual full scale (1:1) WOULD have been.
I am not about to do any math ( I was told there would be no math ) to determine if this was , indeed, the intention.

I completely understand your reasoning and the fact that you been involved in the industry makes your argument arguable.

it IS a shame that scale 1/32 figurines cannot be used on/with this model.

.


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

alpink said:


> ruh roh
> 
> I know nothing!
> 
> ...


It can be easily argued that the the 24 ft indicates the interior volume of the shuttlecraft. there is onscreen evidence to back that up. Four 4 ft. wall panels in the forward compartment of the shuttlecraft and at least two 4 ft. wall panels in the rear compartment. That works well with 1/32 scale with a 30 ft overall length. There is also the idea that the "full size" prop was actually built 3/4 size.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing (May 27, 2014)

alpink said:


> ruh roh
> 
> I know nothing!
> 
> ...



I dont want to do the math either but an optical focal distance could be established with the model and 1:32 scale figures to make it look right. Forced perspective is what I believe the technical term is. In potography this can be accomplished by changing lenses to a longer focal length and taken a new image from the same distance. 🤙


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

Milton Fox Racing said:


> I dont want to do the math either but an optical focal distance could be established with the model and 1:32 scale figures to make it look right. Forced perspective is what I believe the technical term is. In potography this can be accomplished by changing lenses to a longer focal length and taken a new image from the same distance. 🤙


Is potography done with digital or traditional potatoes?


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

krlee said:


> It can be easily argued that the the 24 ft indicates the interior volume of the shuttlecraft. there is onscreen evidence to back that up. Four 4 ft. wall panels in the forward compartment of the shuttlecraft and at least two 4 ft. wall panels in the rear compartment. That works well with 1/32 scale with a 30 ft overall length. There is also the idea that the "full size" prop was actually built 3/4 size.


It could easily be argued, but it'd be fallacious. Kirk mentions the problems with scanning for a 24-foot shuttlecraft in deep space - the size of the interior would be utterly irrelevant to that.

Further, careful examination of screencaps shows that the floor plan of the set was pretty much the same as the interior of the full-sized mockup. Only the roof was raised (and the front bulkhead sloped incorrectly) in order to get the cameras in. This vessel is essentially a minivan. Having full headroom for a standing figure would not be a priority. Look at most minivans and small aircraft around today. And that 3/4 size idea has no provenance. It's alleged that Matt Jefferies said it to the woman who owned the _Galileo_ and was looking to get it refurbished, as told by the guys who actually did refurbish it. It's therefore triple hearsay, never once confirmed by Matt himself in 40 years of interviews, or by Gene Winfield who built both the mockup and the set for AMT, and whose major interview where he discusses the construction I've watched. I have to call BS on it. Jefferies real involvement with the Galileo was pretty much limited to suggesting nacelles be added to Thomas Kellogg's _Avanti_-styled design and almost certainly the paint and marking scheme.

In response to MFR's suggestion of forced perspective, that only works for shadowbox dioramas or for photography. I don't do shadowboxes and I only take snapshots to document my model - not as an end product.

Quite simply, calling it 1/32 scale is misleading.


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

LGFugate said:


> Owen, I understand your disappointment and I respect your right to express it, but please remember, this is just a hobby. I'm just thrilled to finally have a more accurate representation of the TOS shuttlecraft. I don't really care about what scale it really is, just as long it's proportions and shape are more accurate to the studio prop. Given all of that, your work with MMI sounded very promising - what happened to it? (Inquiring minds want to know!)


Thanks for that, Larry, but I _do _care about the scale. I normally build in 1/32 scale, just as a lot of other modellers prefer 1/72, 1/48 or yes, 1/24. I still have the parts for my 1/32 Galileo and take it out from time to time to tinker with it. I have recently discovered Vallejo's Plastic Putty, which looks like it will allow me to do the fillets on the "wings", so I may well get it done some time before the heat death of the universe.

Yes, it's just a hobby, but my hobby is 1/32 scale models and this is not, despite the claim on the box, 1/32.


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

edge10 said:


> Is potography done with digital or traditional potatoes?


Mashed, or perhaps M*A*S*Hed...


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

Owen E Oulton said:


> It could easily be argued, but it'd be fallacious. Kirk mentions the problems with scanning for a 24-foot shuttlecraft in deep space - the size of the interior would be utterly irrelevant to that.
> 
> Further, careful examination of screencaps shows that the floor plan of the set was pretty much the same as the interior of the full-sized mockup. Only the roof was raised (and the front bulkhead sloped incorrectly) in order to get the cameras in. This vessel is essentially a minivan. Having full headroom for a standing figure would not be a priority. Look at most minivans and small aircraft around today. And that 3/4 size idea has no provenance. It's alleged that Matt Jefferies said it to the woman who owned the _Galileo_ and was looking to get it refurbished, as told by the guys who actually did refurbish it. It's therefore triple hearsay, never once confirmed by Matt himself in 40 years of interviews, or by Gene Winfield who built both the mockup and the set for AMT, and whose major interview where he discusses the construction I've watched. I have to call BS on it. Jefferies real involvement with the Galileo was pretty much limited to suggesting nacelles be added to Thomas Kellogg's _Avanti_-styled design and almost certainly the paint and marking scheme.
> 
> ...





Owen E Oulton said:


> Thanks for that, Larry, but I _do _care about the scale. I normally build in 1/32 scale, just as a lot of other modellers prefer 1/72, 1/48 or yes, 1/24. I still have the parts for my 1/32 Galileo and take it out from time to time to tinker with it. I have recently discovered Vallejo's Plastic Putty, which looks like it will allow me to do the fillets on the "wings", so I may well get it done some time before the heat death of the universe.
> 
> Yes, it's just a hobby, but my hobby is 1/32 scale models and this is not, despite the claim on the box, 1/32.


Owen, DUDE,
chill out man!



.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing (May 27, 2014)

As long as you know what I am talking about - it's all good!


Misspellers of the world - untie!


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

I find it interesting that they made the kit with the purpose to have interior at some point. I don't know they just didn't sell the interior kit as a separate kit upfront instead of as a 'maybe in the future'.

I did some number crunching and if someone can double check it?
24 feet = 288 inches ('real full scale') / 11 inch model kit = 1/26.18 scale

If the 24 feet long was 75% full scale than wouldn't the full 100% full size be 32 feet???? (ie 24 feet / 32 feet = 0.75) ???? If so, then:
32 feet = 384 inches / 11 inches = 1/34.91 scale.

<edit>
30 feet = 360 inches / 11 inches = 1/32.72 scale


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

This scale issue was a problem years back when the kit was 1st greenlighted and then killed.

The interior can not fit into the "full sized" prop. It just can't.

Kirk refers to the the Galileo as 24 feet. The "full sized" prop is 22 ft. Right there we have a 8% difference.

Which is correct? Neither. Shatner read a script line and the prop was built to the specs Gene Winfield was given.
If memory serves me, one big factor on the full sized prop was storage and ease of movement.

We see Spock standing upright in "The Galileo Seven", so we can deduce that there is at least 6.5 feet of vertical space in the shuttle craft. But we see everyone crouching way down to get in and out. Including Yeoman Mears.

Gary Kerr and Jamie would know much better, but I seem to remember that to get a 1/32 interior the exterior needed to be around 1/25.

I think this is where we stand now.

The bottom line is it's a VERY well engineered kit, looks great, and is very accurate!

Owen, if you need to have a 1/32 Galileo exterior you will have to scratch build it. If you do Please, please, please,
show it here! I would love to see it!


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

The Galileo is out of stock at Cult and Mega.

Autoworld (R2) still has some. I'm guessing this kit is a very good seller.


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

It all depends on whether you see the shuttlecraft as a minivan or a spacecraft that people can stand up and walk around in. It's a similar situation to the Lost in Space Jupiter 2, which was constructed "full size" at 48 feet in diameter but could not possibly have contained the interior sets shown on the show at that size. I like the idea of a 30-foot shuttlecraft that can actually contain what's depicted on the series.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I'm not too picky on the scale, myself, though I like to read others' criticisms of the kit. I like the idea of its being 1/25th scale. I want to do an interior with figures--mainly just what's visible through the viewports. I'm thinking of scratch-building the chairs (making a master and then a mold and cast the rest) and the lighting fixture and rear wall shouldn't be too hard.


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

The chairs and knobs are on Thingiverse... not the bases, though.


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

The advantage of doing it at 1/25 scale is you can actually see the figures' faces through the window as you can with Randy Cooper's model. If you watch the interior scenes on the show the windows are set at the height of a person standing up and you'd never be able to look out through them while seated. I'll do a diorama at some point with figures outside and I'll be interested to see how they look with it. For the first build I definitely want to do an "in flight" version since I already have Cooper's shuttle with doors open and gear down.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

JeffBond said:


> The advantage of doing it at 1/25 scale is you can actually see the figures' faces through the window as you can with Randy Cooper's model. If you watch the interior scenes on the show the windows are set at the height of a person standing up and you'd never be able to look out through them while seated. I'll do a diorama at some point with figures outside and I'll be interested to see how they look with it. For the first build I definitely want to do an "in flight" version since I already have Cooper's shuttle with doors open and gear down.


Is the only difference between landed and in-flight modes just the landing pads on the forward ends of the nacelles being extended or retracted?


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

interesting, RE: scale
I happened to see "Galileo 7" on one of my channels last night.
Kirk does mention the shuttle is 24 feet.
the interior is high enough for Spock to stand upright.
when Spock was outside at the rear of the shuttle, the top was almost even with (barely taller than) his head.
I am not a big fan, although I enjoy the shows and the friendly banter here and the models Y'all build and share .....
so, I am not familiar with many of the details I see folks here mention as routine.
since that episode aired here last night, i tired to take extra notice of some of the things that have been discussed and as I have related.
it is very interesting how they "electrify" the exterior of the shuttle with a spanner.
the yeoman(woman) wearing red is not killed off yet two crew members are.
LOL
anyway, just wanted to share observations and maybe entertain some feedback.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Yeoman Mears is WAY too cute to kill off, even though she is wearing red!


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Is the only difference between landed and in-flight modes just the landing pads on the forward ends of the nacelles being extended or retracted?


I believe so. The rear landing gear does not appear to have any retraction capability.

I don't think the small filming miniature even had any pod landing gear.


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

mach7 said:


> I believe so. The rear landing gear does not appear to have any retraction capability.
> 
> I don't think the small filming miniature even had any pod landing gear.


There appears to be something there:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Yes, you are correct. 

Check out this site, they are not there in the photo.









That Lucky Kid... Now, Lucky US!


Most of the time, this blog is publishing items in my collection. But sometimes, when something extraordinary from Trek's past shows up, I w...




mystartrekscrapbook.blogspot.com





They don't appear here:










Or here:










But in the TNG photo the shuttle has been reworked.

There must have been removable. I'm guessing that they just stuck on the outside of the pylon, no actual retraction
mechanism.


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

mach7 said:


> Yes, you are correct.
> 
> Check out this site, they are not there in the photo.
> 
> ...


Probably removable to give the illusion that they were retracted.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Excellent reference shots. I'm thinking of putting in a piece of steel tube of a similar size on the side of the upper strut so that once it has been extracted and locked in place, you can turn it around 180 degres, move it up into position through a shaped hole in the flat support piece, and let a weak magnet hold it in place until it's pulled out, turned, and locked in place again.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Excellent reference shots. I'm thinking of putting in a piece of steel tube of a similar size on the side of the upper strut so that once it has been extracted and locked in place, you can turn it around 180 degres, move it up into position through a shaped hole in the flat support piece, and let a weak magnet hold it in place until it's pulled out, turned, and locked in place again.



Ok I'm intrigued, but can you explain a bit more?

Thanks.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

mach7 said:


> Ok I'm intrigued, but can you explain a bit more?
> 
> Thanks.


Whew! I don't know if I can help with more verbiage. When I get home, I'll sketch something out and post it as a pic.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Went to a LHS Friday and bought this kit and like I've done in the past I pulled out the old calculator and at a scale of 1/32 this should be 9 inches long for a shuttle which is supposed to be 24 feet long, wait it gets even more interesting, on the bottom of the box it says a11 inches long and 11" comes out to 29.3 feet.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

At a length of 24' and a scale of 1/32 it would be 9", but at 11" and a scale of 1/32 it comes out to 25' long. This model is not a scale of 1/32. UGH!!


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

Owen E Oulton said:


> This is most disappointing. They made such a big deal about how they re-sized it to accommodate the interior, but there's no interior. Thus, it's absolutely _*NOT*_ 1/32 scale, no matter how you slice it. Scale is the ratio between the real item and the model. The stated size in the show was 24'. The actual set piece is 22'. At 11" long it's 1/25 scale for a 22' long shuttle. This is OK if you're a car modeller who wants to display it with his car models, but it's absolutely no good if you want to do a 1/32 scale diorama with the figures from the _Enterprise_ Bridge kit. At least the original AMT kit was somewhat closer at 1/37.5 scale,bad as it was. I started a 1/32 scale scratchbuild 20 years ago intended as a kit master for MMI where I was a partner and was looking forward to a styrene kit, but this is useless. I'm usually a big booster for Round 2/Polar Lights but I no longer have a lot of faith in them for this frank betrayal.





irishtrek said:


> At a length of 24' and a scale of 1/32 it would be 9", but at 11" and a scale of 1/32 it comes out to 25' long. This model is not a scale of 1/32. UGH!!


yes, we seem to have established that.
and it would seem, to much dismay.
is it otherwise accurate?


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

In all the talk about scale and matching stuff to what we see on screen, no one seems to talk about the scenes where we see equipment under the floorboards. Try and fit a foot or 2 of space under the seats... That also requires an internal 1 or 2 steps down for the door to fold down onto the nacelle the way it does, and we never see that. That's the reason I never even think about building one with an interior, putting the seats on the hull is wrong.

Add in that it was shown to be a long range craft, as in Metamorphosis, then we need it larger to hold enough fuel and supplies, so more like 40 or 50 feet, and then it doesn't fit in the shuttle bay very well....

There's just way too much contradicting info to do any kind of realistic scale on the TOS shuttle.


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

MartyS said:


> In all the talk about scale and matching stuff to what we see on screen, no one seems to talk about the scenes where we see equipment under the floorboards. Try and fit a foot or 2 of space under the seats... That also requires an internal 1 or 2 steps down for the door to fold down onto the nacelle the way it does, and we never see that. That's the reason I never even think about building one with an interior, putting the seats on the hull is wrong.
> 
> Add in that it was shown to be a long range craft, as in Metamorphosis, then we need it larger to hold enough fuel and supplies, so more like 40 or 50 feet, and then it doesn't fit in the shuttle bay very well....
> 
> There's just way too much contradicting info to do any kind of realistic scale on the TOS shuttle.


THAT'S what I'm talkin bout


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

MartyS said:


> In all the talk about scale and matching stuff to what we see on screen, no one seems to talk about the scenes where we see equipment under the floorboards. Try and fit a foot or 2 of space under the seats... That also requires an internal 1 or 2 steps down for the door to fold down onto the nacelle the way it does, and we never see that. That's the reason I never even think about building one with an interior, putting the seats on the hull is wrong.
> 
> Add in that it was shown to be a long range craft, as in Metamorphosis, then we need it larger to hold enough fuel and supplies, so more like 40 or 50 feet, and then it doesn't fit in the shuttle bay very well....
> 
> There's just way too much contradicting info to do any kind of realistic scale on the TOS shuttle.


There was talk about the thickness of the hull for the side walls in relation to the compartments that pop open for the field equipment and the shuttle door. I don't think anyone has brought up that floor piping that Scotty was working on before. I did see a cutaway and the front cockpit area had a thin hull there which didn't make sense to me. You just had to bring in that floor piping thing to seriously mess with everyone.
😱 🤔🤦‍♂️


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

...or we can just ignore the scale and enjoy building the model. Anyway, that's my plan.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

The_Engineer said:


> You just had to bring in that floor piping thing to seriously mess with everyone.


I'm just evil that way..... 

But seriously, is there another part of Star Trek TOS that has so much conflicting info on screen? Anything you build will have to ignore some aspect of what was shown or said about the shuttle craft.

It's too bad the writers and prop makers had no idea we would be building models of their stuff so far in the future or they probably would have tried to be more consistent. If only syndication hadn't had a big drop in the mid 60s, the people making Star Trek figured an episode would get a few reruns at most and then not be seen again. The explosion of UHF stations needing material changed all that in the 70s, and then I was flipping channels to watch several episodes every night since where I lived was between several major markets.

After building my 3D printed one I haven't had the urge to pick up this kit, I'm guessing/hoping since it seems to be sold out that they will do another run, maybe over the winter I'll feel like building another shuttle.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

If you look carefully in the scene, you'll see that the space under the floorboard is actually the exterior under the hull. Apparently Scotty has rigged up something connecting to the nacelles or there's another panel underneath that he also took off.

BTW: Hasn't it also been established that there must be a hatch in the rear room deck since there's a scene of someone who is clearly supposed to be coming in from outside as he enters through the door in the rear bulkhead?


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

ruh roh

" Hasn't it also been established that there must be a hatch in the rear room deck since there's a scene of someone who is clearly supposed to be coming in from outside as he enters through the door in the rear bulkhead? "


----------



## Milton Fox Racing (May 27, 2014)

We're going to need a bigger Galileo


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

mach7 said:


> Ok I'm intrigued, but can you explain a bit more?
> 
> Thanks.


Sorry I took so long. Finally finished the little roughed-up sketch to go along with my earlier verbiage:



> I'm thinking of putting in a piece of steel tube of a similar size on the side of the upper strut so that once it has been extracted and locked in place, you can turn it around 180 degres, move it up into position through a shaped hole in the flat support piece, and let a weak magnet hold it in place until it's pulled out, turned, and locked in place again.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Ahh, Thanks!


----------



## JediDad (Dec 5, 2009)

Guys, I totally respect everyone's opinion here. However. Look at this kit compared to the 74 kit. Can't we be happy that a company stepped up and did this kit??? In my opinion this kit is freaking amazing.


----------



## xsavoie (Jun 29, 1999)

So what is the final verdict. What is the scale of the Galileo shuttlecraft if we put different scale figures near it.Which one would fit better in this shuttlecraft interior.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing (May 27, 2014)

xsavoie said:


> So what is the final verdict. What is the scale of the Galileo shuttlecraft if we put different scale figures near it.Which one would fit better in this shuttlecraft interior.


I think that Mach 7 has it most right in regards to your questions. I've since lost my score card, but as I remember it - a 1/32 scale size 'full' interior will fit nicely inside the 1/25 scale sized model shown here. 

Figures shown outside of the shuttle craft would need to be 1:25 scale to look the best.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I wish Gary would chime in. He did all the work on this, And outstanding work it is!


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

I know Gary has said that an interior will account for the opening in the floor and the phaser storage in the wall, so we can assume that a floor piece goes inside the bottom "tub" piece and interior wall pieces are added to the interior sides (obviously there is detail from the attaching points between the upper and lower interior walls that would need to be covered to reproduce the interior as it's seen on the show). I haven't put any 1/32 standing figures alongside the assembled shuttle but I have an idea how they would look and I don't have a problem with it--Gary also said years ago that you would have to scale the interior differently from the exterior to get it to fit. This just means that 1/32 figures can actually stand as they enter the shuttle instead of going into a crouch. The rear access panels aren't any less accessible to a 1/32 figure, nor does the entryway step suddenly become unnegotiable for a figure that size. To me this just represents a more realistically sized vessel for what the shuttle is supposed to do. It's common for "full size" vehicle props like this to be made at 3/4 scale and the built-in "forced perspective" of the shuttle angles was meant to enhance the ship's apparent size. Star Trek in a way dug its own grave with nerdy fans by being at least SOMEWHAT more thoughtful in terms of continuity and engineering than previous sci-fi shows had been. But it was still a TV show and while they certainly had marketing and toys in mind when they made it no one was saying "this must be completely workable as an actual spacecraft and we will spend all the time and money necessary to make it so!" They had a schedule and a budget and they worked within those terms to make the Galileo.


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

As long as it has the '89 David Winfrey rear compartment, I'm happy. There HAS to be room for a head, a pocket door like we heard, and some sort of external monitors to explain why Dr. McCoy knew something was going on outside...


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

As for colors, I found these at my LHS today.

They look close, both will need to be lightened with some flat white.

Top:


















Bottom:



















These need to be airbrushed and are not exact. I looked at the rattle can racks, but I saw nothing closer than what I have posted before.

Tamiya Insignia white for the top and Tamiya grey primer for the bottom.


I can't find Modelmaster aggressor grey or Light Sea grey anywhere on line, so that option seems to be out.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing (May 27, 2014)

Do you have some white you can add to the top color and some black to add to the bottom color to get them closer? Some eye droppers can be used to keep track of the mix portions.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I do, but to my eye the bottom needs a tiny bit of lightening not darkening.

I have some scrap plastic, but I don't want to mix the paint until I'm ready to paint the shuttle.

I do have access to my airbrush again, finally. 

I've never sprayed the Tamiya, It looks like it needs a bit of thining. I have Tamiya thinner, but I've heard people also have good luck using alchohol.


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

mach7 said:


> I do, but to my eye the bottom needs a tiny bit of lightening not darkening.
> 
> I have some scrap plastic, but I don't want to mix the paint until I'm ready to paint the shuttle.
> 
> ...


Use the Tamiya thinner. It makes a difference, IMHO.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Thanks!


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

RossW said:


> Use the Tamiya thinner. It makes a difference, IMHO.


FWIW, I use Tamiya to thin and alcohol for cleaning.


----------

