# Romulan BOP



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

OK - my Romulan Bird of Pray came today from CultTVMan! Ya!!!! Now looking at it I see that there are two different things with this release vs the old. The front plasma and the clear doom. So I was thinking - that I would put the clear parts on and put LED lights in the engine. But I don't remember the RBOP showing the engine like that. Is anyone else doing that? Or putting the clear part on? Just curious!

Chinxy!:dude:


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Based on photos of the original filming miniature that I found, it looks like the domes are clear.


----------



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

Thanks Spock62. Well I'm going to pull the DVD to this episode and watch it tonight!


----------



## NTRPRZ (Feb 23, 1999)

I don't recall the engine domes being lit on the BOP in the TOS episode, though they may have rectified that in the remastered show.

My take is that if you want to light them, then do so. If not, save yourself the trouble. It may be a bit of a problem running the wiring for batteries out of the body of the model since it doesn't have a decent stand and because you don't want to ruin the Bird decal on the bottom.

I suggest you drag out the BOP blueprints issued a few years ago, add some of the hatches, impulse engine vents and landing gear, then go to town!

Jeff


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

They looked clear but unlit to me. What if you filled them with a clear epoxy or something similar to give them a nice refractive quality?


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

I just tinted them with tamiya clear orange. I think it looks good. I will be posting my completed pics in the next day or so. Just need to dull coat it.


----------



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

mikephys said:


> They looked clear but unlit to me. What if you filled them with a clear epoxy or something similar to give them a nice refractive quality?


Ya know - I think I'll just paint the inside red of enamel humbrol to make it shine inside. 

Chinxy!:dude:


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

The attached picture form the Memory Alpha site shows lit nacelles. However, I don't recall ever seeing them lit in the show. So I guess it is a matter of preference. I personally would not light them.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Opus Penguin said:


> The attached picture form the Memory Alpha site shows lit nacelles. However, I don't recall ever seeing them lit in the show. So I guess it is a matter of preference. I personally would not light them.


Looks like they glow with a white light, like a light bulb. So, you could coat the inside with white (if your not lighting the kit), or leave it clear. Before I saw the photos, I just assumed they glowed red/orange. On my original, built when I was a kid, it was left unpainted plastic, just like the rest of the model! Then again, all my kits back then were unpainted....


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

IIRC, the original was never shown on screen lit up though it was fully wired and capable of being lit up as in the photograph Opus supplied above.

The original FX model was really well done--a true work of art. It's a shame that it did not survive.

Someone a while back had references showing that the Romulan BOP was originally supposed to be revealed in the show as a rip off of Federation designs (similar to the what the Russians did with the B-50 in the 1940s and later with the Space Shuttle and other designs). It really does look like a Federation design bearing many similarities to the 1701 though configured differently and with no secondary hull. It would fit well into the implied design trends of the Federation of that era.

In fact, such info regarding the originally intended design origins of the BOP would justify such a design as originally being a Federation ship. It would make an interesting take on the Romulan ship if done up in Federation colors.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> IIRC, the original was never shown on screen lit up though it was fully wired and capable of being lit up as in the photograph Opus supplied above.
> 
> The original FX model was really well done--a true work of art. It's a shame that it did not survive.
> 
> ...


It also bears a resemblance to the Enterprise NX-01. Hmmmmmmmm?!!


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I'll try and find the links, the original story had espionage as a subplot. The BOP was supposed to be the result of the Romulans stealing the plans to the Constitution class starship and adapting the design to Romulan technology.
The Stiles/Spock exchanges are the only remnants of this subplot. Of course, as we all know the major plot was a re-dress of the 1957 movie "The Enemy Below".

EDIT:

This is not the original site I had found before, but It matches up with what I had read.

http://www.fastcopyinc.com/orionpress/articles/balanceofterror.htm


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

I got my reisue last week. I plan on coating the inside of the clear domes with fluorescent white paint so it looks like a light bulb. I have these xmas tree LED's that don't glow too bright which is what I'm after. 

By the way, has anyone noticed what appear to be something like rhinestones where the windows woudl be along the front rim of the studio model ? Kind of odd looking but I've seen some othere pics of this and they don't appear to be flush with the hull.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

mach7 said:


> I'll try and find the links, the original story had espionage as a subplot. The BOP was supposed to be the result of the Romulans stealing the plans to the Constitution class starship and adapting the design to Romulan technology.
> The Stiles/Spock exchanges are the only remnants of this subplot. Of course, as we all know the major plot was a re-dress of the 1957 movie "The Enemy Below".
> 
> EDIT:
> ...


Yeah, that's it! You're right about the design mods, then. I didn't remember that it was that specific. 

Still, it's more than enough to justify something very similar in the Federation of the "expanded" Trek universe where there are many more ship designs similar to the 1701 design.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Trekkriffic said:


> By the way, has anyone noticed what appear to be something like rhinestones where the windows woudl be along the front rim of the studio model ? Kind of odd looking but I've seen some othere pics of this and they don't appear to be flush with the hull.


Check out this build: 

http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/123618.aspx

It shows the framing of the windows you mention. Looks like it would take quite a bit of work to make the kit accurate to the filming miniature.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

What an incredible build. I remember buying the kit in the 70s, recognizing that the hull needed that bevel and toying with the idea of trying to reshape it, at the very beginning of my modeling days. Never even tried it!

What kills me is that after all that amazing work, he's still stuck with something that doesn't much resemble the filming miniature because the engine pylons are still all wrong. I love that R2 reissued the BOP but it has to be the most inaccurate Trek model ever made...


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Been waiting 30 some odd years to get my hands on this kit (my original from the '70's is long gone), and I'm glad Round 2 decided to offer it again with enhancements. But I really wish they would put more effort into making new tools of some of the more inaccurate AMT kits, instead of reissuing the old stuff. That being said, this reissue is on the bench, ready for a weekend build!


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

spock62 said:


> Been waiting 30 some odd years to get my hands on this kit (my original from the '70's is long gone), and I'm glad Round 2 decided to offer it again with enhancements. But I really wish they would put more effort into making new tools of some of the more inaccurate AMT kits, instead of reissuing the old stuff. That being said, this reissue is on the bench, ready for a weekend build!


Hopefully they do that with the Galileo 7. As we all, who got the romulan BOP know, on the side of the box it says coming soon


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

jaws62666 said:


> Hopefully they do that with the Galileo 7. As we all, who got the romulan BOP know, on the side of the box it says coming soon


Did you mean enhancing the existing tool or making an all new tool? Willing to bet Round 2 will do the former, but I'd wish they'd do the latter, in a larger scale. 

The Galileo would need a lot of work to correct it. The inside is wrong, the rear thrusters/wall is wrong and the way the outside side walls extend over the roof is incorrect. I think there may be other errors too. Something tells me Round 2 will correct some of the issues, but not all of them.


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

spock62 said:


> Did you mean enhancing the existing tool or making an all new tool? Willing to bet Round 2 will do the former, but I'd wish they'd do the latter, in a larger scale.
> 
> The Galileo would need a lot of work to correct it. The inside is wrong, the rear thrusters/wall is wrong and the way the outside side walls extend over the roof is incorrect. I think there may be other errors too. Something tells me Round 2 will correct some of the issues, but not all of them.


Larger would be awesome. I am just hoping that at least the rear end gets fixed.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

I did a large vac kit last year which really turned out great. It is about twice the size of the AMT reissue and it is very accurate. Regarding the BOP and the Gallileo I don't understand why the kits were made so inaccurate. Here is my 1/350 scale BOP under construction:


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

spock62 said:


> Check out this build:
> 
> http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/123618.aspx
> 
> It shows the framing of the windows you mention. Looks like it would take quite a bit of work to make the kit accurate to the filming miniature.


I remember Duckie's build - I saved all the posts and combined them into a step-by-step PDF of the entire thing

I'll ask him if it would be alright to e-mail copies to anyone wanting to take a close look at the entire process


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

mach7 said:


> I'll try and find the links, the original story had espionage as a subplot. The BOP was supposed to be the result of the Romulans stealing the plans to the Constitution class starship and adapting the design to Romulan technology.


I really like this idea, but there is one curious thing...the Romulan ship has nacelles, presumably warp nacelles like a Constitution class starship. But in "Balance of Terror" Scotty explicitly states that the Romulan ship only has "simple impulse" power.

(Of course, how they get around in the galaxy on just impulse power without it taking YEARS is never explained...)


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Fozzie said:


> I really like this idea, but there is one curious thing...the Romulan ship has nacelles, presumably warp nacelles like a Constitution class starship. But in "Balance of Terror" Scotty explicitly states that the Romulan ship only has "simple impulse" power.
> 
> (Of course, how they get around in the galaxy on just impulse power without it taking YEARS is never explained...)


Well the shuttlecraft suddenly had warp capability in "The Menagerie". I guess Irwin Allenisms are not exclusive to his own productions!


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

feek61 said:


> I did a large vac kit last year which really turned out great. It is about twice the size of the AMT reissue and it is very accurate. Regarding the BOP and the Gallileo I don't understand why the kits were made so inaccurate. Here is my 1/350 scale BOP under construction:


WOW, that's really nice, great job! 

What's really interesting about the Galileo kit is that the construction of the shuttle used on the show was financed by AMT in exchange for the rights to build the model kit. If that story is true, how could they have screwed up the kit so badly, since they must have had access to the original? Seems that, with few exceptions, accuracy was not Job No. 1 at AMT!


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

Actually, "Simple Impulse Power" and "Warp Drive" aren't incompatible

Powering the warp circuits from Impulse Energy *will* create a warp field, just a very weak one, limiting the ship to perhaps Warp 3, and having a definite time limit as you fuse all your spare hydrogen to power the warp field

All the Matter/Anti-Matter plant does is provide

1) Large amounts of energy needed to reach higher warp speeds
2) Small quantity of fuel usage, allowing a longer endurance (Fusion power is .07% efficient, MAM is 100% efficient)

So, even though the Romulans used "simple impulse power", they still had FTL capability - just not to the extent that Earth and later the Federation had - until the Klingon/Romulan tech treaty - Klingons get cloaking, Romulans get MAM - until they perfect the Quantum Black Hole power plant


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

They didn't care. I'll bet Round 2 could provide a pretty accurate rear section for the Galileo and new landing gear, possibly some more interior detail pieces (like the globe-shaped scanners and the clear navigational disc on the "dashboard." But you're really have to overhaul the top hull piece to get the slope of the roof and the overhanging side walls. Be interesting to see what they do--I'd be shocked if they released it without any enhancement at all.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

USS Atlantis said:


> Actually, "Simple Impulse Power" and "Warp Drive" aren't incompatible
> 
> Powering the warp circuits from Impulse Energy *will* create a warp field, just a very weak one, limiting the ship to perhaps Warp 3, and having a definite time limit as you fuse all your spare hydrogen to power the warp field
> 
> ...


Okay...I'll buy that! :thumbsup:


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

spock62 said:


> Check out this build:
> 
> http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/123618.aspx
> 
> It shows the framing of the windows you mention. Looks like it would take quite a bit of work to make the kit accurate to the filming miniature.


Man that's a lot of work! I'll have to decide if I want to go that far or not. It would be nice to have the bevelled two-step edge though. But if I did that I'd certainly spend the time to get the correct angle on the wings; they should be more swept forward than the kit has them. I'd settle for decals for the windows. Only planning to light the warp engines and maybe the impulse vents.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Opened the box tonight to check the kit out and noticed that there are no decals for the windows on the side of the hull. The photos of the assembled model on the bottom of the box clearly show these windows. What gives? Over at the Starfleet Modeler, it was mentioned that the Reliant has the same problem, no decals for the windows on the side of the hull, you have to buy the Aztec decal set to get them. I'm kind of annoyed with this, what would it take for Round 2 to have included the window decals? Geez!


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

USS Atlantis said:


> I remember Duckie's build - I saved all the posts and combined them into a step-by-step PDF of the entire thing
> 
> I'll ask him if it would be alright to e-mail copies to anyone wanting to take a close look at the entire process


Alright - Duck gave permission

For anyone who want's to follow the build highlighted, I'll e-mail a compiled version that's in PDF format

This is all the posts he made while building it, removing side comments and replies from other people

This is 2.7mb in size, so be sure your e-mail box can handle that

Toss me a PM or an E-Mail requesting "Duck's Romulan BOP build"


----------



## kingston123 (Jan 29, 2011)

*Sticker Printing*

i always like to read some good and informative
blogs and this blog is also so good and helpful.
thanks for taking time to discus this topic..


----------



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

For anyone who want's to follow the build highlighted, I'll e-mail a compiled version that's in PDF format

Toss me a PM or an E-Mail requesting "Duck's Romulan BOP build"[/QUOTE]

OK - PM sent!


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

Here is my just completed BOP . Hope you all like it.
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?p=3656455#post3656455


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Aren't the clear nacelle caps too small?

I'm thinking of painting the opaque hemispherical pieces and gluing them straight onto the nacelle front ends without the in-between pieces.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Aren't the clear nacelle caps too small?
> 
> I'm thinking of painting the opaque hemispherical pieces and gluing them straight onto the nacelle front ends without the in-between pieces.


They look almost half the size they need to be, based on the photos posted of the FX model!


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Here are some photos from my stash. The grainy one is a scan of a film frame.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Thanx for the photos Edge, never saw the first two before in color. 

3 pages so for on this thread, not bad for a 30+ year old kit!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Edge said:


> Here are some photos from my stash. The grainy one is a scan of a film frame.


Pretty much proves that the added domes in the re-issue are not even close to accurate! Oh well!


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

I believe the first photo is actually a colorized b&w the second and third are color.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

RSN said:


> Pretty much proves that the added domes in the re-issue are not even close to accurate! Oh well!


Not to pick on you specifically... but since you made this point - the entire kit isn't accurate, so what's the big deal? The new domes are still better than the doorknob domes!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

WarpCore Breach said:


> Not to pick on you specifically... but since you made this point - the entire kit isn't accurate, so what's the big deal? The new domes are still better than the doorknob domes!


That was what the "Oh well!" in my statement was for. The kit was never anything to write home about 40 years ago, nothing has changed! I still remember my dissapointment when I opened it for the first time in the early '70's. "This is it?" was all I could think.


----------



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

OK guys! Am I missing something or am I being dumb? The clear domes don't fit! So how do you make them fit? I'll have to play with this! I'm working on BOP now. Oh well!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Chinxy said:


> OK guys! Am I missing something or am I being dumb? The clear domes don't fit! So how do you make them fit? I'll have to play with this! I'm working on BOP now. Oh well!


From just looking at the pictures of the re-pop and the studio model, they are just too small. Only way I can see to fix it is to use a non kit dome that is the correct size.


----------



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

Well I have it built now and doing the filling! I'll finish that tomorrow! But I left off the the engine dome cause I'm just not sure what to do with that. Maybe I'll just put the right size one on and paint it. MAYBE!:freak:

Chinxy!:dude:


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

It appears to me that the original domes were a 2-piece affair, but when you use the replacement clear dome, you just have the one piece. The conical "spacer" that you put at the front end of the nacelle for the original dome just isn't used with the clear domes.

Right...?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Fozzie said:


> It appears to me that the original domes were a 2-piece affair, but when you use the replacement clear dome, you just have the one piece. The conical "spacer" that you put at the front end of the nacelle for the original dome just isn't used with the clear domes.
> 
> Right...?


Not the way I see the part in pictures people have posted. The dome on the studio model is just about the diameter of the nacelle, with a slight bevel. The re-pop just puts a dome on the over beveled end, instead of the spheres. The domes are about half the size they need to be! No matter how you build it, you will not achieve the look of the studio miniature engine cap. But, as has been said, the entire kit wrong, so this little nugget does nothing to change that, one way or the other!


----------



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

That may be so but at least it gives some idea how to use the clear parts if I go that way! And I wanted to do a Humbrol clear color which would give it an interesting effect I think. So tonight when I get home from work I'll through the DVD in and see what it looks like and make a decision.  Thanks everyone for your input!

Chinxy!:dude:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I wonder if the domes from the 1/100th 1701 kit are bigger. 

Getting the domes right hardly makes the kit overall more accurate but it does help the front profile a lot.

I like to consider the AMT version of the BOP a decent looking variation of the original design myself but, that being said, I'd still like there to be more points in common with the original design and the engine nacelle domes (or lack thereof) have always bugged me. I never liked the "knobs" of the original.

I may wind up making this kit into a TOS era (or earlier) Federation ship and use the engines for the Playmates' toy conversion I've gotten to the point of needing engines.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

This seems to be an accurate set of plans of the Rom BOP:

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/romulan-bird-of-prey-sheet-1.jpg


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

RSN said:


> Not the way I see the part in pictures people have posted. The dome on the studio model is just about the diameter of the nacelle, with a slight bevel. The re-pop just puts a dome on the over beveled end, instead of the spheres. The domes are about half the size they need to be! No matter how you build it, you will not achieve the look of the studio miniature engine cap. But, as has been said, the entire kit wrong, so this little nugget does nothing to change that, one way or the other!


Sorry I wasn't more clear. When I said "original domes" I was referring to the original AMT model, not the original studio model.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Fozzie said:


> Sorry I wasn't more clear. When I said "original domes" I was referring to the original AMT model, not the original studio model.


Either way, what you get for your money in this kit, won't get you the look of the studio/screen seen Romulan Bird of Prey.


----------



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

Grabbed this from the original TV show Balance of Terror from my DVD! 





This shows me a lot and now I know what to do!

Chinxy!:dude:


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Well I've changed my mind on how far I'm going to take this. Might as well go whole hog; besides it's good therapy for my healing broken right wrist! Based on measurements taken off the blueprints, the main hull looks to be about a half inch too short not counting 1/4" for the lip around the rim. The cupola on top will also need to be extended and flattened at an angle on the rear. This will mean remaking the center fin which was too thick to begin with. I've got the right size brass tubing now for both the round sensors and square windows. The wings will need to be shortened and tilted forward which means a lot of trimmimg and fitting to the hull and warp engines. Changing the wing length and angle will almost surely throw off the alignment on the big bird decal but I'll have to deal with it even if it means painting it on. 
Man, here I thought I'd just do a quick and dirty on this one but...
OH WELL, IN FOR A PENNY, IN FOR A POUND !
I wish us all good luck!


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

*Studio Model*

If you really want to see some great images of the original studio model, some not-so-well-known pictures have been posted to Flickr. These images show the model in two settings. The first shows the model mounted on a stand. In this state, the model is lit (windows and nacelles). You can also clearly see that the windows are framed, with a riveted look to them. Also, the model, at this point, does not have the feathered design on the dorsal fin or the dorsal side of the aft section.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdofthegalaxy/3503273160/

In the other photos, the model is not on a stand, nor is the electrical supply wire connected. This is how the model was filmed for broadcast.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdofthegalaxy/3659123450/in/set-72157619514479789/

These photos prove on thing: regardless of what anyone says, this model was not shown in the original episode as being lit, as some have claimed. I think people are mistaking either reflections of studio lights or the background stars showing through the model during the cloaking scenes as being lit windows.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Lit or unlit? That is the question. 

i wonder how it would look with clear domes perhaps sprayed with dullcote on the inside with white reflective tape stuck to the front of the nacelles behind the domes. In profile they would appear unlit like they did during filming whereas from the front the white reflective tape would make them appear lit, especially with a flash.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Trekkriffic said:


> Lit or unlit? That is the question.
> 
> i wonder how it would look with clear domes perhaps sprayed with dullcote on the inside with white reflective tape stuck to the front of the nacelles behind the domes. In profile they would appear unlit like they did during filming whereas from the front the white reflective tape would make them appear lit, especially with a flash.


I was thinking of doing something similar to that myself.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Trekkriffic said:


> Lit or unlit? That is the question.
> 
> i wonder how it would look with clear domes perhaps sprayed with dullcote on the inside with white reflective tape stuck to the front of the nacelles behind the domes. In profile they would appear unlit like they did during filming whereas from the front the white reflective tape would make them appear lit, especially with a flash.


GREAT idea! Reflective tape for windows would work, too.:thumbsup:


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> GREAT idea! Reflective tape for windows would work, too.:thumbsup:


Yes. I have some 1/16" diameter round brass tubing to cut into sections for the round "sensors" and some 1/16" square brass tubing for the square "windows". I also have some 1/16" diameter round clear acrylic rod that slides inside the round tubing for the windows. What I might do is slide a short length of acrylic rod down into the brass tubing, add a drop of CA, let dry, then insert a tiny piece of reflective tape, then push in another section of acrylic rod so the tape is sandwiched between the sections of acrylic rod. For the square windows I'd slide in a piece of 1/16" dia clear rod, add a drop of CA to hold it in place, let dry, then insert a square piece of reflective tape, then another piece of acrylic rod, then fill any gaps with Micro Kristal Klear. I may add a drop of Klear to the round ports too. 
Glad I have a magnifier, hopefully my eyes don't go all cockeyed. :freak:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Covering the reflective tape with clear plastic is a good idea. The only time I've messed reflective tape up is when spraying dull cote on it.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Yeah. I would think dullcote would kinda defeat the purpose.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Trekkriffic said:


> Yeah. I would think dullcote would kinda defeat the purpose.


It did :drunk:

I've been sure to apply the reflective tape LAST after that.

I have found that the reflective tape works well when the tape is protected behind plastic, however--even behind tinted plastic.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> It did :drunk:
> 
> I've been sure to apply the reflective tape LAST after that.
> 
> I have found that the reflective tape works well when the tape is protected behind plastic, however--even behind tinted plastic.


Tinted plastic eh? Hmmmm... that gets me to thinkin' and that could be dangerous. The blueprints call out sensors and windows. I'm wondering if I should do the windows in white with clear plastic and tint the plastic over the sensors- maybe red or blue tint over white tape. Red would look more menacing. Perhaps tint future with red ink and apply a drop to the window's outer surface. Yellow is another option.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Trekkriffic said:


> Tinted plastic eh? Hmmmm... that gets me to thinkin' and that could be dangerous. The blueprints call out sensors and windows. I'm wondering if I should do the windows in white with clear plastic and tint the plastic over the sensors- maybe red or blue tint over white tape. Red would look more menacing. Perhaps tint future with red ink and apply a drop to the window's outer surface. Yellow is another option.


If they're red windows, you have the option of red reflective tape.

There are tinting gels you can get at hobby stores--Hobby Lobby and the like.


----------



## dreadnaught726 (Feb 5, 2011)

Just finished basic construction of AMT Romulan BOP. Now, what color? Light grey or metallic?


----------



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

dreadnaught726 said:


> Just finished basic construction of AMT Romulan BOP. Now, what color? Light grey or metallic?


I'm now at the same place as dreadnaught - what is the real color?


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

Whatever cranks your cord

The 1600-scale I did a while back was a base coat of Humbrol Gun Metal with a dry-brush of Humbrol Green Mist over it (both metallics)


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

I'm probably going with light grey for the base color with white behind the feathers on the underside. Maybe mix a little light grey with the white. Probably use steel for the warp engine "nozzles" and the plasma emitter. I've got a loooooong ways to go yet before I even get to the painting stage though. Just started extending the back of the cupola on top this morning using evergreen strip. Hopefully I'll have it done and puttied before the Super Bowl starts!


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

I found this image on Cloudster via the Wayback Machine. I hope no one minds my posting it here. I just wanted to ask if this filming model was lit in any way for the shooting. The unused closeup shot, which was linked to earlier in this thread, looks lit, but this one does not. Are the nacelle caps blue? I would really appreciate comments. Thanks.


----------



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

Well I went with light Blue/white! My daughter liked it. She's 21 and an art student in collage! I'll put on the decals this week! And I went with the clear domes. Just colored the inside of them. 
It's funny - looking at the pic's from my capture and Mikephys I don't see the decal strips on top. Just the bottom. Were they really there?

Chinxy!:dude:


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Sounds like a great choice Chinxy! Will you be posting pics? 

The markings on the top are tough to see on all the frame grabs from the episode, but some of the production photos show them clearly. I think they were certainly on the original studio model.


----------



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

mikephys said:


> Sounds like a great choice Chinxy! Will you be posting pics?


Yes I will Mike - as soon as I finish putting on the decal this weekend (tomorrow)

Chinxy!:dude:


----------



## robster94gt (Feb 5, 2009)

Just wondering how it came out
Rob


----------

