# Let's see a built Revell Enterprise.



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Ok, I know it's only just come out but seeing as I won't be getting mine for a few weeks...I'm itchin to see some nice clear photo's of a built example.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

If the money's there, I plan on getting one in a few weeks. If the money's not quite there, then I'll be putting some aside and getting one in January.

Even then, it probably won't be a full build, just enough for a good side-by-side comparison with a couple of 18" AMT's (an old long box version and a R2 repop).


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

does anybody know where I can aquire a revell-germany star trek enterprise ?????


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Try the WEB.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

A quick Ebay search yielded 4 different sellers with multiple kits. Searching Google with the kit number (04880) yielded a bunch of sellers.


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

It cost me $100 including shipping for both the Enterprise and klingon ship on E Bay


----------



## Jay Chladek (Apr 17, 2001)

I have plans to do mine, but I have one project that needs finishing first and I need a lighting kit for it (and my modeling budget is kind of lean these days, so I can't just spend the $70 needed on one until maybe the middle part of next week). Believe me, I would love to start slapping this puppy together right this instant, but I want to showcase the ease of lighting it and I don't want to skimp on that feature.


----------



## John F (May 31, 2001)

I've started on mine, built the saucer but have not glued the two halves together yet, I'm, I'm still debating weather to light it or not. One thing that I did notice is that the saucer top fits in a recess on the bottom so there is no seam on the verticle edge, and the seam on top is almost hidden as one of the grid lines, it would probably blend in good with some paint on it.

Saucer from the top, the top isn't glued on yet, I just put it there for the pictures









side view








Saucer halves


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

So, while this may not be the most accurate Enterprise kit to date, it does appear to be the best engineered.

Now I _really_ want one...


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

This looks like a well engineered kit! It's nice to not have to fill every seam line with putty.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Man, with all those clear windows and the inner fan insert for the busssards it would be a shame not to light it. Just my opinion.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

I never knew about the upper hull sky lights, they were on all 3 vertions ?


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

SKYLIGHTS??? What for? There's no light to speak of in space. Just sayin'...


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

woof359 said:


> I never knew about the upper hull sky lights, they were on all 3 vertions ?


I don't think they were on "The Cage" version as it had no lights. If I am not mistaken, they were access hatches to the lights for the saucer edge lightbulbs. Each one on top corresponds with the windows on the edge, except for the one on the left rear, which is just painted on and there are no windows on the edge like there are on the other three. This is my take on why they are on the model.:thumbsup:


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

RSN said:


> I don't think they were on "The Cage" version as it had no lights. If I am not mistaken, they were access hatches to the lights for the saucer edge lightbulbs. Each one on top corresponds with the windows on the edge, except for the one on the left rear, which is just painted on and there are no windows on the edge like there are on the other three. This is my take on why they are on the model.:thumbsup:


That makes a lot of sense. 
Some of the filming model's features (like the Bussard retainers and Bow 'light') were crafted around the neccessary construction and made to look like part of the design. I kinda like those white squares on top- I do not think of them as windows but some sort of high tech stuff used to deal with something we just do not know about.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

RSN said:


> I don't think they were on "The Cage" version as it had no lights. If I am not mistaken, they were access hatches to the lights for the saucer edge lightbulbs. Each one on top corresponds with the windows on the edge, except for the one on the left rear, which is just painted on and there are no windows on the edge like there are on the other three. This is my take on why they are on the model.:thumbsup:


That makes a lot of sense. 
Some of the filming model's features (like the Bussard retainers and Bow 'light') were crafted around the neccessary construction and made to look like part of the design. I kinda like those white squares on top- I do not think of them as windows but some sort of high tech stuff used to deal with something we just do not know about.


----------



## MLCrisis32 (Oct 11, 2011)

For me I can live with the inaccuracies people are mentioning if I gain pre-cut windows and clear parts for them! Plus it looks like a well-fitted kit that I'd love to build for my father someday.(I grew up with the TMP Enterprise but he started with TOS)


----------



## Whiteraven_2001 (Apr 12, 2008)

The skylights are there to drive the purists crazy; just my interpretation.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Whiteraven_2001 said:


> The skylights are there to drive the purists crazy; just my interpretation.


Huh? How's that?

FYI, these are frosted plexiglass bits, and can be pried out to get access to the lamp bulb underneath (which, as mentioned, is also used to light the hull rim windows in those locations as well) There's a circular "plug" of the same material at the leading edge of the saucer as well, but that big was generally not visibly backlit like the three rectangles were.

The fourth rectangle was just painted on... and as stated, was in the location where there were no lit windows.

I love the light-ability of this kit, by the way... I just wish they'd gotten the shapes correct. But I think we know why they did what they did (trying to merge differerent on-screen versions into one "averaged" version).


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

SUNGOD said:


> Ok, I know it's only just come out but seeing as I won't be getting mine for a few weeks...I'm itchin to see some nice clear photo's of a built example.


Paitinece, young Obi Wan, paitience. Give these humans from a different galaxy a chance to build the Revell Of Germany Enterprise.


----------



## robtrek (Sep 26, 2007)

Here's a link to a built Enterprise and Klingon. They are not painted, but the images are decent for showing off the details.

http://www.scalemodelnews.com/2011/10/star-trek-from-revell-test-shots-of.html

Let the comments begin!

Rob


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Comments on those test shot photos have been what have dominated the discussion thus far.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

robtrek said:


> Here's a link to a built Enterprise and Klingon. They are not painted, but the images are decent for showing off the details.
> 
> http://www.scalemodelnews.com/2011/10/star-trek-from-revell-test-shots-of.html
> 
> ...


The rest of the kit isn't bad, but the botched lower primary hull and forward section of the secondary hull really turn me off. That and the overdone gridlines.


----------



## Spockr (Sep 14, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> The rest of the kit isn't bad, but the botched lower primary hull and forward section of the secondary hull really turn me off. That and the overdone gridlines.


I agree with you though I like the way they made it easy to light this model.. sometimes trade-offs breed choices that give worthwhile options.


----------



## RICHjm (Jun 14, 2010)

Those "skylights" on top of the TOS are in the same location, but on the rim sides of the TMP refit.
Maneuvering Thrusters?_RICH.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

The TOS Enterprise was too advanced to use maneuvering thrusters. Even Kirk called for "lateral power". Roddenberry wanted to totally avoid any tech that could be construed as modern day. Lasers became phasers. Rocket engines were changed to impulse engines. The fact that the Refit and later ships used such backward technology is due to the lack of imagination on the part of their designers and builders. They were told to do it, reasoning be hanged. 

Each thruster would require a fuel source. Even if they were electro-plasma engines, fuel would be required to give something to shove out of the ship to get a specific impulse. The Refit is simply not big enough to carry enough fuel for a standard rocket engine or electro-plasma engine based thrusters for any significant long term use. I'd find it easier to believe that "warp-plasma" is diverted to the thrusters, like it is to the impulse drive, than imagine the use of some kind of fuel for that use.

Sorry, just me. Tired of the retro-tech. Even the JJ-prise apparently used the beer processors as ersatz fuel containers for its thrusters. Fine, if that's the direction you want to go. But the ship would have to be 2500 feet to accommodate enough hypergolic and oxidizing fuels for this purpose.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> The rest of the kit isn't bad, but the botched lower primary hull and forward section of the secondary hull really turn me off. That and the overdone gridlines.


The contours of the lower saucer look more like the 33-inch model than the 11-footer. As for the gridlines — yecch. The first thing I’d do is fill them in, even if it’s a lot of tedious work.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

charonjr said:


> The TOS Enterprise was too advanced to use maneuvering thrusters. Even Kirk called for "lateral power". Roddenberry wanted to totally avoid any tech that could be construed as modern day. Lasers became phasers. Rocket engines were changed to impulse engines. The fact that the Refit and later ships used such backward technology is due to the lack of imagination on the part of their designers and builders. They were told to do it, reasoning be hanged.
> 
> Each thruster would require a fuel source. Even if they were electro-plasma engines, fuel would be required to give something to shove out of the ship to get a specific impulse. The Refit is simply not big enough to carry enough fuel for a standard rocket engine or electro-plasma engine based thrusters for any significant long term use. I'd find it easier to believe that "warp-plasma" is diverted to the thrusters, like it is to the impulse drive, than imagine the use of some kind of fuel for that use.
> 
> Sorry, just me. Tired of the retro-tech. Even the JJ-prise apparently used the beer processors as ersatz fuel containers for its thrusters. Fine, if that's the direction you want to go. But the ship would have to be 2500 feet to accommodate enough hypergolic and oxidizing fuels for this purpose.


A lot of blueprints call out the RCS units as "particle beam thrusters." Sounds kinda dangerous in spacedock, to me.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I always figured the RCS thrusters were some super advanced technology. They're lit all the time rather than just coming on during a particular maneuver. Don't know what they are, but they just don't seem like rockets.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

It's really very easy when you have transporter and replicator technology.

You don't need rocket motor's, hot gasses, or plasma. 

You have a transporter emitter/receiver and an ejection point at place's around the exterior of the ship. You start with a supply of a dense material (lead, spent uranium,or a beryllium sphere). You transport it to the location needed, eject it with a high rate of speed, then after it has cleared the ship you grab it with the transporter and beam it back to the reaction motor to start the whole thin over again. 

Very elegant, all you need is power and a relatively small supply of ejectable material. You can even start beaming the same mass between reaction motors.

Once they had inertial dampeners, transporters, and replicators it all falls into place.

I would envision a backup system using hot plasma from the impulse engines. With 4 points along the edge of the primary hull, each with an upper, lower, and rim port you could maneuver very well. I would think the perfect location would be adjacent to the 4 large white blocks.

Of course this is just a thought exercise.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

charonjr said:


> The TOS Enterprise was too advanced to use maneuvering thrusters. Even Kirk called for "lateral power". Roddenberry wanted to totally avoid any tech that could be construed as modern day. Lasers became phasers. Rocket engines were changed to impulse engines. The fact that the Refit and later ships used such backward technology is due to the lack of imagination on the part of their designers and builders. They were told to do it, reasoning be hanged.
> 
> Each thruster would require a fuel source. Even if they were electro-plasma engines, fuel would be required to give something to shove out of the ship to get a specific impulse. The Refit is simply not big enough to carry enough fuel for a standard rocket engine or electro-plasma engine based thrusters for any significant long term use. I'd find it easier to believe that "warp-plasma" is diverted to the thrusters, like it is to the impulse drive, than imagine the use of some kind of fuel for that use.
> 
> Sorry, just me. Tired of the retro-tech. Even the JJ-prise apparently used the beer processors as ersatz fuel containers for its thrusters. Fine, if that's the direction you want to go. But the ship would have to be 2500 feet to accommodate enough hypergolic and oxidizing fuels for this purpose.


Considering Roddenberry was the brains behind ST:TMP, which first gave us "thrusters" on the Enterprise, it would appear he had no problem with the term. He oversaw the script, which contained the use of the word, he oversaw the design and approved of the refit, which incorporated then in the hull, and he wrote the novel, which included the terminology. This is just another case of trying to "retrofit" Star Trek into something more than just entertainment. Entertainment which I am greatful for, but that is just me! :thumbsup:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

charonjr said:


> The TOS Enterprise was too advanced to use maneuvering thrusters. Even Kirk called for "lateral power". Roddenberry wanted to totally avoid any tech that could be construed as modern day. Lasers became phasers. Rocket engines were changed to impulse engines. The fact that the Refit and later ships used such backward technology is due to the lack of imagination on the part of their designers and builders. They were told to do it, reasoning be hanged.
> 
> Each thruster would require a fuel source. Even if they were electro-plasma engines, fuel would be required to give something to shove out of the ship to get a specific impulse. The Refit is simply not big enough to carry enough fuel for a standard rocket engine or electro-plasma engine based thrusters for any significant long term use. I'd find it easier to believe that "warp-plasma" is diverted to the thrusters, like it is to the impulse drive, than imagine the use of some kind of fuel for that use.
> 
> Sorry, just me. Tired of the retro-tech. Even the JJ-prise apparently used the beer processors as ersatz fuel containers for its thrusters. Fine, if that's the direction you want to go. But the ship would have to be 2500 feet to accommodate enough hypergolic and oxidizing fuels for this purpose.


You make it sound like any new starship starting with the refit uses chemicals to fuel its engines.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

If only we could get all this brain power into the real space program earth's problems would have been solved long ago...


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

Gravitational Thrusters.... if you can have artificial gravity, why the hell not?!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Well, that's sort of the trick... those who don't really get science too well assume that you'll start over with something magical and totally replace existing technology. That's not how research, development and so forth normally work, though.

If a screwdriver and screw work to do a particular job, there's no reason to use a "transphasic hyperthermic parabonding gizmotron" to do that job, is there?

Similarly, we know that the majority of matter in the universe... at least our particular corner therein, anyway... is made up of materials found in a periodic table, and the lower the number, the higher the amount present as a general rule. So it's reasonable to assume that most construction in Trek times will continue to be made from metallic alloys made from the basic metals we currently know. "Tritanium" is likely some super-alloy of titanium, just for example, and "duranium" is likely some variation of steel with some as-of-today-not-known alloying and heat-treating technique.

Basic Newtonian physics will not cease to be core elements of the universe we live in, whether it be tomorrow or a thousand years from today. And if a Newtonian thrust-based system, will do the trick, why not use it? Why invent "magic" to fill in gaps that science we really know can serve at least as well as any "magic" can?

There's no reason to conclude that the TOS Enterprise lacked reaction-control thrusters... which have been present on all maneuverable spacecraft ever launched in real life, as well as in virtually every science fiction ship ever proposed as well.

Sometimes they're called "steering jets" or "directional control rockets" or whatever, but the concept remains the same... they put out a small thrust force at some distance from the center of mass of the ship, thus creating torque on the ship and resulting in rotation of the vessel about the center of mass.

I've always assumed that the TOS ship had these, but didn't use them often. Remember, on the TOS ship we also had phasers, but they weren't visible either (presumably they were hidden behind retractable panels and only exposed when in use). Whereas, on the TMP ship, both the thrusters and the phasers were exposed, and moreover, were marked as "danger zones" with big yellow and red markings... just like we use today to do that same thing. And on the TNG ship, you had big yellow "warning zones" around louvered, vectored thrust ports in those locations. (Per multiple sources, including the TNG tech manual and the big cutaway, among many others.)

I'm in the camp that holds that impulse is Newtonian as well.. after all, the word "impulse" is as central to real Newtonian physics as "mass," "velocity," and "acceleration" are. I just have concluded that they have some "magic" way of improving the performance of this... and we have significant on-screen evidence to that end, by the way. Basically, they use a "static subspace field" to reduce the apparent mass of the ship, and to increase the "local speed of light" so that the ship can accelerate very quickly and can move at significant speeds... including being able to get from the Galactic Barrier (tm) to Delta Vega (the TOS planet, not the ST'09 one) without warp drive, before the crew dies of old age. Sort of arbitrarily, though supportably from argument, I've treated the upper limit of this as being about 75C, or approximately WF4.2 (old scale).

As for "warp drive," well, that's totally magic. But it, and the transporter, are the only elements of Treknology which require total disregard for known physics and a total clean-sheet reinvention. Everything else can be treated as some outgrowth of a real technology we have, or at least have postulated, today.

As for me, I only use the "magic generators" when there's no way to do something without them.


----------



## Borz666 (May 17, 2004)

CLBrown said:


> As for "warp drive," well, that's totally magic. But it, and the transporter, are the only elements of Treknology which require total disregard for known physics and a total clean-sheet reinvention. Everything else can be treated as some outgrowth of a real technology we have, or at least have postulated, today.


Not strictly true in regards to "warp drive". Just by chance the correct term was used. The theory stands that with e=mc2 when you travel at the speed of light mass would become energy, and energy mass (a sort of limbo state). 

So to get round this, you can (THEORETICALLY!! if you can produce enough energy....) bend space (like planets and other large bodies in space) and then (for want of a better word) surf on the fabric of space. 

This then means that you (the ship) are not actually moving but the space around you is! and there for not turning into energy/mass and then making possible to go faster than the speed of light. 

What with the recent discoveries at CERN this makes the future quite exciting. I feel the start of a new era in science on the horizon. Shame I probably won't be around to see the fruits of this but hey... I have hope.


Oh I will be be buying a building one of these next week!

Chris


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

This is a fictional spacecraft from an 60's TV series, not rocket science!
I always wanted to say that.

I'm still waiting to see a finished one, so I can see how it looks, not just the test ones. With the engineering of the kit so good, it should be a fast build, unless lighting it.


----------



## Larry523 (Feb 16, 2010)

CLBrown said:


> If a screwdriver and screw work to do a particular job, there's no reason to use a "transphasic hyperthermic parabonding gizmotron" to do that job, is there?


While you have a valid point, the Mark IV THPG is such a nifty gadget one can't help but look for new and ingenious ways to use it!


----------



## dreadnaught726 (Feb 5, 2011)

For a kit with so many inaccuracies, there are a lot of people who want this kit.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Well drat! I leave the office for a half hour yesterday and I missed the Jim, the mailman. He left an announcement in my box that he tried to drop off my Klingon and Enterprise - now I have to drive way across town today to the main PO to get them.

Of course I'm on the edge of town so my mail doesn't come from one of the two neighboring towns' POs that are less than 2 miles away with no traffic getting to them - nope, my mail's at the PO 5 miles away that takes at least 20 minutes to get to.


----------



## Jay Chladek (Apr 17, 2001)

Okay, WHAT is a thruster? It is SOMETHING that produces thrust right? WHO CARES what the power source is, the term is STILL valid! Frankly I think somebody is reading too much into Gene's writing. He didn't flesh out every little nitty gritty detail and some of the terms like "lateral power" were just a 1960s form of technobabble and something that sounded cool as it rolled off the tongue (how many people knew what "lateral" meant back then without having to grab a dictionary?).

Besides, Trek used the rockets term once in "The Cage" when Spock called for them to blast out of Talos orbit when the power systems on the ship got shut down (it got cut from the Menagerie re-airing).

Besides, I thought this was a discussion about what a built Revell kit looks like, not a debate about thrusters.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Jay Chladek said:


> Okay, WHAT is a thruster? It is SOMETHING that produces thrust right? WHO CARES what the power source is, the term is STILL valid! Frankly I think somebody is reading too much into Gene's writing. He didn't flesh out every little nitty gritty detail and some of the terms like "lateral power" were just a 1960s form of technobabble and something that sounded cool as it rolled off the tongue (how many people knew what "lateral" meant back then without having to grab a dictionary?).
> 
> Besides, Trek used the rockets term once in "The Cage" when Spock called for them to blast out of Talos orbit when the power systems on the ship got shut down (it got cut from the Menagerie re-airing).
> 
> Besides, I thought this was a discussion about what a built Revell kit looks like, not a debate about thrusters.


Well, then, post some more pics... and we'll discuss 'em!


----------



## liskorea317 (Mar 27, 2009)

Lloyd Collins said:


> This is a fictional spacecraft from an 60's TV series, not rocket science!
> I always wanted to say that.
> 
> I'm still waiting to see a finished one, so I can see how it looks, not just the test ones. With the engineering of the kit so good, it should be a fast build, unless lighting it.


I have a head ache!:thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Looks like it'll be another month before I can get one.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I just got back from the PO and I've got to say that this is one kit that looks better in person than in the online photographs. Yes, the gridlines and proportional problems are still there, but in a quick 3 minute perusal of the sprues it looks like it'll build up quite nicely.

I'm surprised at the Klingon cruiser - I wonder why there are only engraved lines on the top of the secondary hull and cobra head. Nothing on the bottom of either. Hmmm.

General to both: perhaps it's that my old AMT kits are in storage and I haven't seen them in years so I'm used to looking at the 1/1000 PL kits, but these seem quite nice sized.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

CLBrown said:


> ... there's no reason to use a "transphasic hyperthermic parabonding gizmotron" ...


Is that canon?

Oh, I wish it were. 
There should be a list of fake Treknobabble somewhere.

Oh, wait. It's all fake.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Wouldn't "technobabble" qualify as technobabble?! :thumbsup:


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

irishtrek said:


> Paitinece, young Obi Wan, paitience. Give these humans from a different galaxy a chance to build the Revell Of Germany Enterprise.




Will try my best!


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Paulbo said:


> I just got back from the PO and I've got to say that this is one kit that looks better in person than in the online photographs. Yes, the gridlines and proportional problems are still there, but in a quick 3 minute perusal of the sprues it looks like it'll build up quite nicely.
> 
> I'm surprised at the Klingon cruiser - I wonder why there are only engraved lines on the top of the secondary hull and cobra head. Nothing on the bottom of either. Hmmm.
> 
> General to both: perhaps it's that my old AMT kits are in storage and I haven't seen them in years so I'm used to looking at the 1/1000 PL kits, but these seem quite nice sized.




The Klingon ship like the Enterprise looks to be a bit of a hybrid of the os series and later ships. Shame there's only detail on the top though.


----------



## JediPuju (Oct 12, 2009)

For those with the Klingon Cruiser - do you think it would be feasible to convert it to a movie era K'tinga with a bit of scratchbuilding, better than the AMT battlecruiser kit? 

ta


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

JediPuju said:


> For those with the Klingon Cruiser - do you think it would be feasible to convert it to a movie era K'tinga with a bit of scratchbuilding, better than the AMT battlecruiser kit?
> 
> ta


Unlikely. The TOS and TMP Klingon ships are SIMILAR, but are really very significantly different in terms of size, shape, and proportion. It's not just a new paint job and some extra details. The TMP Klingon ship is "just like" the TOS Klingon ship, only insofar as the TMP Enterprise is "just like" the TOS Enterprise. They're similar enough to be recognizable but not really the same.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

JediPuju said:


> For those with the Klingon Cruiser - do you think it would be feasible to convert it to a movie era K'tinga with a bit of scratchbuilding, better than the AMT battlecruiser kit?
> 
> ta


Kinda semi almost. 

You can make as much of a K'tinga with this one as I did with my old AMT TOS D7 in the short time before the "official" kit came out. (Perhaps even a bit closer.)

Figure it this way - the Revell D7 is about as close in shape and design to the K'tinga as it is to the TOS ship 

I've taped together the Enterprise and have a love-hate relationship with some of the kit's engineering. I expect the same with the D7, but in a cursory view I like the way many parts of the detailing are handled.

So the upshot is ... it depends on how retentive you want to be.


----------



## ViperRecon (Aug 3, 2010)

CLBrown said:


> Unlikely. The TOS and TMP Klingon ships are SIMILAR, but are really very significantly different in terms of size, shape, and proportion. It's not just a new paint job and some extra details. The TMP Klingon ship is "just like" the TOS Klingon ship, only insofar as the TMP Enterprise is "just like" the TOS Enterprise. They're similar enough to be recognizable but not really the same.


I've wondered the same thing as JediPuju. It would be interesting to read a comparison between the K'tinga class and the TOS D-7 studio models related to those aspects (shapes, proportions). By that I don't mean "well the Ktinga was a bigger ship because there were more windows and they were smaller in order to increase sense of scale" but rather something along the lines of "the nacelles were proportionally farther apart on the Ktinga, and longer, but set at less of an angle to a plane through the ship's center line, etc" (I have no idea if that's true, I use it merely as an example).

Mark in Okinawa


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I know the K'Tinga has a slightly shorter neck than the D-7, so there's that...


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

There are a lot of differences- IIRC seeing side by side comparisons and while the design was followed the proportions all were altered.
Considering the Ktinga has been considered the 'D-7M' and the TOS a D-7, you can always create a 'D-7K' or some unseen variant and have fun.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Here’s a comparison of the TOS and TMP Klingon ships.










So alike, yet so different.

And I don’t like the addition of engraved detail to the Revell K-7. The original had smooth surfaces (like the original _Enterprise_) and that’s how the model should look.


----------



## Jay Chladek (Apr 17, 2001)

TOS D7 and Ktinga remind me of the new Challenger and the old 60s Dodge Challengers. You can recognize the design lineage, but they are different in many ways. When I eventually get my hands on a Revell D-7, I plan to turn it into one of the Romulan "Stormbird" ships from the FASA game. Basically they were exported D-7s, similar to D-7Ms. Reason why I am thinking along those lines is I can remember a painted up one in the FASA advertisements that was a FASA Klingon D-7M mini done in a nice three tone white, blue and gray with a bird like livery on the entire ship (as opposed to just sticking a bird on the bottom that nobody can see unless you have a mirror base looking up). Since the Revell kit doesn't have the really thick paneling, I should have an easier time with it than converting an AMT TMP D-7M kit.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Jay Chladek said:


> TOS D7 and Ktinga remind me of the new Challenger and the old 60s Dodge Challengers. You can recognize the design lineage, but they are different in many ways. When I eventually get my hands on a Revell D-7, I plan to turn it into one of the Romulan "Stormbird" ships from the FASA game. Basically they were exported D-7s, similar to D-7Ms. Reason why I am thinking along those lines is I can remember a painted up one in the FASA advertisements that was a FASA Klingon D-7M mini done in a nice three tone white, blue and gray with a bird like livery on the entire ship (as opposed to just sticking a bird on the bottom that nobody can see unless you have a mirror base looking up). Since the Revell kit doesn't have the really thick paneling, I should have an easier time with it than converting an AMT TMP D-7M kit.


Ah, not a bad idea.

There's a three-character bit of Klingon text on the wing pylons of the TOS ship, and that's normally interpreted as being the Klingon language version of "D-7A." The "A" basically means the second major revision of that design type. (Yes, this isn't "canon" but it's been widely accepted over the years, and this was even the basis for the creation of the "Klingon alphabet" which was created by fandom and eventually adopted, with only minor tweaks, as the "official" Klingon script.)

The "D-7M" bit infers that this is a much later model of the same ship, or some sort of variant in any case. And while it's also not "canon," several sources have agreed that the ship in "The Undiscovered Country" (which was a redress of the TMP ship) is a "D-7S" cruiser. (Presumably, the ships seen in the show "Enterprise" were D-6 type cruisers, or perhaps the original D-7, without the "A" revision?)

In any case, it's entirely reasonable to treat this model as some intermediate model between the D-7A and the D-7M classes. In fact, the character that falls right in the middle of those would be the letter "K," so... I'd think that this might well be the D-7K class?

Check this out for the "Klingon Alphabet." You'll be looking, in particular, for the oldest of the bunch, which matches what's on the TOS ship... the one called "Klinzhai." It was derived by Geoffrey Mandell for his "Enterprise Officer's Manual" and was the ONLY one out there until TNG started tweaking things around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon_alphabets

And to save a couple of mouse-clicks...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Klinzhai_alphabet.GIF


----------



## ViperRecon (Aug 3, 2010)

Interesting stuff! I just got my Revell D7 yesterday and I have to say that I think it is definitely a great jumping off point for any variant in the evolution from the TOS version to the TMP representation. How ever you may feel about their Enterprise (I personally don't like it enough to buy one) I'm quite pleased with their efforts in this case.

Mark in Okinawa


----------



## Jay Chladek (Apr 17, 2001)

One thing I really think is cool about the Revell kit is the decal sheet has more Klingon characters on it, so you don't have to mark up EVERY KLINGON with the SAME "D7A" on the wings. And there are plenty of extras left over once the decals are used on the model. That alone is a pretty dang cool extra.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> There's a three-character bit of Klingon text on the wing pylons of the TOS ship, and that's normally interpreted as being the Klingon language version of "D-7A."


By who?


----------



## ViperRecon (Aug 3, 2010)

Scotpens,

Thanks for the pic! I believe that's Q'uonos One on the right, however since they modified the TMP K'tinga studio model into this ship it probably differs from the TMP version mainly in details and not proportions.

I agree that the TOS ship should be smooth without engraved panels. I think it's pretty clear though that Revell produced an idealized version of the ship based not only on TOS references but also on the Greg Jein ship and possibly the Phase One version as well, so it definitely isn't a TOS D-7 (thankfully Round2 has that covered).

Mark in Okinawa


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

It's a pisser that the old Star Trek Pi typeface only had a few Klingon letters. 

One of these days I should digitize the full alphabet.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

It does seem odd that the Klingons would just identify the class of ship with those markings as opposed to the name or designation of an individual vessel. Seems like a relatively useless piece of information to put on the side of a vessel since you would likely be able to identify the class of ship visually long before you picked up on the markings. Never heard that one before. But I love the expanded decal sheet and I'm looking forward to getting this kit. It's a "Phase II" D-7 as far as I'm concerned--I don't know about the Enterprise, but for the Klingon ship the Revell/Germany approach of mixing up research material seems to have produced a fascinating variant.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Kit said:


> By who?


Yeah, that's a new one on me, and kinda strikes me as nonsensical.

Unless one adopts the theory that the Klingons like to put signage on their ships akin to the mid-range Porshe's in the early 80's, with "PORSHE" emblazoned in big obnoxious letters on the side.

I think those markings are just the registry number of the ship. In Klingonese.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Yeah, that's a new one on me, and kinda strikes me as nonsensical.
> 
> Unless one adopts the theory that the Klingons like to put signage on their ships akin to the mid-range Porshe's in the early 80's, with "PORSHE" emblazoned in big obnoxious letters on the side.
> 
> I think those markings are just the registry number of the ship. In Klingonese.


Wouldn't the cruiser say "Klingon" then, instead of "D7"? And if so, I guess they've got an "alphabet" that's more like kanji characters that are not just a single sound :wave:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

It makes no sense that the Klingons would have the model number of the ship stamped so large on the hull. As has been stated, it would have the name and or registry number. The Enterprise doesn't say "Consitution Class A" on the hull, it has the name and number of the ship.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Yes, I think we're all agreeing to that ... I *think* we're making fun of the possibility of the Klingons stamping "Model 37B" (for example) on the side of their ship.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Paulbo said:


> Yes, I think we're all agreeing to that ... I *think* we're making fun of the possibility of the Klingons stamping "Model 37B" (for example) on the side of their ship.


As was I. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> I think those markings are just the registry number of the ship. In Klingonese.


Makes sense to me. :thumbsup:


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> Makes sense to me. :thumbsup:


Ditto


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Jay Chladek said:


> One thing I really think is cool about the Revell kit is the decal sheet has more Klingon characters on it, so you don't have to mark up EVERY KLINGON with the SAME "D7A" on the wings. And there are plenty of extras left over once the decals are used on the model. That alone is a pretty dang cool extra.


DId they provide a full set of characters, or just a handful? I know that someone posted this a few days ago... 

ah, yes, in this thread...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=344344...

See the tenth post.

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3969483&postcount=10

And you find this image of the decal sheet:

http://s1209.photobucket.com/albums...7 Cruiser/?action=view&current=SCAN0037-1.jpg

(thanks to RobComet)

And yep, it sure looks like they used Geoffrey Mandell's alphabet.

Fascinatingly, the wing markings in the kit are NOT the same as on the TOS model... the markings on the Revell ship seem to read "D74" (with some sort of "accent mark" to the right of the four). The original miniature (and the AMT kit) had the markings "D7A" according to Mandell's alphabet.

So, it's pretty clear that they intended for this to not be the TOS model, anyway.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> Yeah, that's a new one on me, and kinda strikes me as nonsensical.
> 
> Unless one adopts the theory that the Klingons like to put signage on their ships akin to the mid-range Porshe's in the early 80's, with "PORSHE" emblazoned in big obnoxious letters on the side.
> 
> I think those markings are just the registry number of the ship. In Klingonese.


It's a new one on you? Really? I'm amazed. I thought for sure that you, of all folks, would be up to speed on that sort of 1970s/1980s Trek trivia.

The logic, of course, was that the same model was used during TOS to represent many different Klingon ships, and the marking was visible from time to time. Since this was not intended to represent "one ship that keeps getting crews swapped out," the only conclusion you could draw was that every ship of that type had that same marking.

It's not really all THAT out of the realm of possibility, really, is it? I mean, what's the point of having the "Starfleet Banner" on the side of a ship, or the "United Federation of Planets" logo, for that matter? Why the "yellow swish," or the "Federation Arrowhead" later one?

The same argument you guys are making re: the "D7A" marking can be made, equally reasonably, to why the Enterprise has those markings on her, can't it?

It's very common for large pieces of equipment to have the make/model number in big bold lettering somewhere on it, even today, here on earth. It's not as much of a stretch as some of you are trying to make it seem to think that the Klingons might follow the same approach we use for big industrial equipment, here on Earth today, just for example.

For the TMP ship, by the way, the ship had different, but similarly short, wing-tip markings, based somewhat on the TOS markings, but also had smaller-font, longer markings as well, near the trailing edge of the secondary hull "wing" area. AND it had the big "trefoil" on the underside of the secondary hull, over the reactor core dome (which, similarly, serves no real FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE, does it?)


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Paulbo said:


> Wouldn't the cruiser say "Klingon" then, instead of "D7"? And if so, I guess they've got an "alphabet" that's more like kanji characters that are not just a single sound :wave:


Actually, that's one that Mark Okrand can answer pretty conclusively, since he developed the Klingon language, both written and oral, which put a roof over his head for many years. 

The Klingon alphabet is phonetic... letters based upon sounds... just like ours, but a bit simpler (insofar as their letters only make a single sound, while ours are "conditional").

Yeah, it's not real, but it's so crazily complete that they've even done a full translation of Shakespeare, and of the Bible, and of a number of other works, into "the original Klingon." Crazy, but still fairly impressive.

FYI, I have a ton of fonts on my system, including several Trekkian ones. I have about seven "Klingon" fonts, but there are only three worth the effort. The first one you see here is based on the style of the Jefferies/Mandell font, but applied to English characters. The second is the Jefferies/Mandell font. The third is the TNG-era font.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Nerd Alert !


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Ductapeforever said:


> Nerd Alert !


I think you need to be more specific here. Most of us here have probably been identified as nerds at some point.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Ductapeforever said:


> Nerd Alert !


Double post


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

So, we all know that the Klingon "language" and "alphabet" are just...made up, right? Jimmy Doohan created it for ST:TMP and Mark Okrand expand it is ST 3, but it is still made up sounds to represent speach. There were markings on the original Klingon ship in 1968, so they incorporated those abstract shapes into the "alphabet" to represent "D" "7" and "A", it still makes no sense that the class designation of the ship would be stamped on it so big. All modern navel vessels have their own name and number on them, not "Los Angeles Class". And just because the same model with the same markings was used in more than one episode does not back up the "D7A" theory. The Enterprise, with 1701 on it, represented 5 ships in the episode "The Ultimate Computer". Overthinking this stuff really takes the fun out. It was what it was and it is what it is, just enjoy it and put away the microscope. My two cents. (And to head off the 10 paragraph argument that the name Enterprise and the 1701 were not visible on those ships in the shots they used, how visible were the markings on the Klingon/Romulan ships in the shots they reused?)


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Amen.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

CLBrown said:


> If a screwdriver and screw work to do a particular job, there's no reason to use a "transphasic hyperthermic parabonding gizmotron" to do that job, is there?



Don't be so quick to poopoo the usefulness of the classic _Sonic _Screwdriver!!


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> It's a new one on you? Really? I'm amazed. I thought for sure that you, of all folks, would be up to speed on that sort of 1970s/1980s Trek trivia.
> 
> The logic, of course, was that the same model was used during TOS to represent many different Klingon ships, and the marking was visible from time to time. Since this was not intended to represent "one ship that keeps getting crews swapped out," the only conclusion you could draw was that every ship of that type had that same marking.
> 
> ...


You may be missing the point, which on my part at least, was a comment on the dangers of, as one historian put it, being convinced of one's own rectitude.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I too think the use of large graphics to merely describe what model the ship is is weird. SInce it was shown as being on each ship shown on screen, perhaps it was a unit designation- 'Federation Defense Wing' (Klingon initials). Sort of like th 'Open Circle Fleet' symbol being on most of the equipment in The Clone Wars and RotS...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The one and only time those markings were clearly visible was "Elaan of Troyius", with that nice long side view shot as it's chasing the Enterprise.

Every other time the ship shows up, the markings aren't even visible, let alone legible.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Kit said:


> You may be missing the point, which on my part at least, was a comment on the dangers of, as one historian put it, being convinced of one's own rectitude.


No, I think I get your point.

I'll never understand why, in a discussion of a topic related to entertainment or politics or philosophy or... cooking or gardening or WHATEVER... some folks choose to enter the conversation, not to participate in the conversation, but instead to tell other people to stop having it.

If you don't like the conversation, nobody's forcing you to read it or participate in it, are they? So, what, exactly, is the point of posting "non-contributing" posts of the sort you've just done?

I mean, honestly, if you don't like the topic... ignore it. If NOBODY likes the topic... nobody will participate, and it'll die off. There's really no need for you to tell people to stop having a conversation, simply because you, personally, don't want to be part of it.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

John P said:


> Don't be so quick to poopoo the usefulness of the classic _Sonic _Screwdriver!!


Well, yeah, THAT goes without saying! :thumbsup:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Kit said:


> You may be missing the point, which on my part at least, was a comment on the dangers of, as one historian put it, being convinced of one's own rectitude.


"Rectitude??!? Damn near .. um ..."


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

fire91bird said:


> I think you need to be more specific here. Most of us here have probably been identified as nerds at some point.


I'm not a nerd. I'm a geek and proud of it!

Rob


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

When are we to see a built Enterprise? These commercials are killing me, waiting to see one finished!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

As soon as I have fifty bucks to spare, I'll get right on it.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

fire91bird said:


> I think you need to be more specific here. Most of us here have probably been identified as nerds at some point.


That's nerrd and it stand for Never Ending Radical/Rightous Dude!!!!!:tongue::tongue::wave:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I have been called many things, but, not a nerd.:freak:


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I have been called many things, but, not a nerd.:freak:


"Most of us"


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I've been called a nerf-herder.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Well, you _are_ rather scruffy-looking.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

He's got a point.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I've never been _insulted _by the term nerd. Every time I've been called a nerd, it's resulted in a vicious agreement.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> No, I think I get your point.
> 
> I'll never understand why, in a discussion of a topic related to entertainment or politics or philosophy or... cooking or gardening or WHATEVER... some folks choose to enter the conversation, not to participate in the conversation, but instead to tell other people to stop having it.
> 
> ...


Please. That characterization of what I wrote is dead wrong. I'm not asking folks to stop having a conversation, and I'm not telling them to do anything. I joined in this specific conversation to question the idea that there is wide acceptance for a specific view: That the markings on a D-7 indicate class of ship. I was asking for some backup to your statement that it was a widely held view, and suggesting that being so sure of one obscure viewpoint can chill a conversation rather than kindle it. It's called a conversation.

Listen, anyone can post a mind-numbing bludgeon of detail and sweeping statements to stifle a true exchange if they have the spare time, but it's a lot more fun to talk these things over with mutual respect instead. I'm game if you are. We can get back on track in a second: So where was this wide acceptance for the idea that the markings were an indicator of class of ship?


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

SteveR said:


> "Rectitude??!? Damn near .. um ..."


Ha! I'm guess I am a word nerd, and proud of it. As for rectitude...I'm trying to put that problem *behind* me, if you get my drift.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Kit said:


> Please. That characterization of what I wrote is dead wrong. I'm not asking folks to stop having a conversation, and I'm not telling them to do anything. I joined in this specific conversation to question the idea that there is wide acceptance for a specific view: That the markings on a D-7 indicate class of ship. I was asking for some backup to your statement that it was a widely held view, and suggesting that being so sure of one obscure viewpoint can chill a conversation rather than kindle it. It's called a conversation.
> 
> Listen, anyone can post a mind-numbing bludgeon of detail and sweeping statements to stifle a true exchange if they have the spare time, but it's a lot more fun to talk these things over with mutual respect instead. I'm game if you are. We can get back on track in a second: So where was this wide acceptance for the idea that the markings were an indicator of class of ship?



I will back you up. I ran a large and successful Star Trek fan club and convention from 1979-1994 and I never heard anyone share that observation. Take that for what it is worth.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Ditto - if it was discussed at a convention, printed in a fanzine, or otherwise mentioned anywhere, any time between 1975 and 1991 (read "before I met my wife and stopped being on the club and con circuit") I would have heard it. This was the first mention that I've ever heard of that being what the characters stand for.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

SteveR said:


> "Rectitude??!? Damn near .. um ..."


It's nothing sexual...


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

I've been trying to tackle that bulbous bulge on the saucer underside as well as the refit style underside edge.

After sanding it paper thin, it doesn't look so objectional - either that, or I'm trying to see an improvement to justify all of that sanding!

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d134/maximumUK/DSC02521.jpg

I'm not sure about the rest of the ship - the connecting dorsal looks like its going to need a lot of work!

Here's a guy getting great results from lighting his version





 




 
Steve


----------



## Jay Chladek (Apr 17, 2001)

Dang, that is masochistic. But indeed I can see improvement to the shape as well. Keep going with it. My own build will likely be OOB but with lights. Yet I am willing to see how others manage in their attempts to fix some of the kit flaws.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

It's nice to see someone...anyone build one of these instead of the endless gassing on about what they don't like about it.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Kit said:


> Please. That characterization of what I wrote is dead wrong. I'm not asking folks to stop having a conversation, and I'm not telling them to do anything. I joined in this specific conversation to question the idea that there is wide acceptance for a specific view: That the markings on a D-7 indicate class of ship. I was asking for some backup to your statement that it was a widely held view, and suggesting that being so sure of one obscure viewpoint can chill a conversation rather than kindle it. It's called a conversation.
> 
> Listen, anyone can post a mind-numbing bludgeon of detail and sweeping statements to stifle a true exchange if they have the spare time, but it's a lot more fun to talk these things over with mutual respect instead. I'm game if you are. We can get back on track in a second: So where was this wide acceptance for the idea that the markings were an indicator of class of ship?


Every single reference, comment, or source of info I have ever ran across from 1966 until today, frankly. Geoffrey Mandel's creation of a Klingon alphabet was merely one of the more visible representations of this.

In fact, I've never seen anyone question it until this very thread.

Of course, you don't have to accept any of this. But your comments have served no other purpose but to be "chilling." You could propose your own position (as several others have done). And we can discuss it (as has been done).

But the "personal challenges," frankly, are... well... "inappropriate," at best. You haven't contributed anything, as far as I can see, except what others, were they to have done, would have been given "warnings" over, that is, "weakly veiled insults."

I don't have any interest, frankly, in whether or not you want to accept, or reject, anything. If you, personally, have a different opinion, that's your business.

Of course, you didn't say something like "I've never heard that, what's your source of information?" No... you took a very different sort of tone. Not one of "conversation" but rather of "resentful confrontationalism."

OBVIOUSLY, this is all fictional.

But I've been a serious Trek fan since before I was even able to read, and I've read virtually every magazine article, fan-publication, blueprint, and book on the topic published from 1972 (when I was six years old) until about halfway through the run of TNG (when the fan-publishing business was shut down, and we started getting "gems" like "The Ferengi Cookbook" from the official sources).

And, as I said, I never saw any other source claiming anything else about these markings, and I've seen many references (not the least of which is Geoffrey Mandel's work) which treated it exactly as I've described.

Are you, at least, familiar with Mandel?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Mandel

http://www.geoffreymandel.com/


----------



## Commander Dan (Mar 22, 2001)

Wow... While I am quite familiar with Mandel's Trek fan publications (I have the Excalibur insignia from his U.S.S. Enterprise Officer's Manual tattooed on my shoulder!), I had no idea he had later actually done work on any of the Star Trek TV shows and films! That's cool!

Thanks for those links CLBrown!


----------



## bigdaddydaveh (Jul 20, 2007)

Still waiting to see photos of a completed kit here. Anyone?


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> Every single reference, comment, or source of info I have ever ran across from 1966 until today, frankly. Geoffrey Mandel's creation of a Klingon alphabet was merely one of the more visible representations of this.
> 
> In fact, I've never seen anyone question it until this very thread.
> 
> ...


Yes, I am. Many of us here have some specialized knowledge. What makes Hobbytalk fun for me, when it works, is nobody here's much smarter than anyone else, so far as I can tell, and many folks here have been modeling and Star Trek fans for most of their lives. That's why it sometimes seems "patronising" to make statements of "fact."

So rather than being "confrontational," let me try to get this to that foundation of mutual respect I mentioned before.

I've never heard that *it's widely accepted *that the markings on a D-7 say something like D-7. What's your source of information?

Nice links.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I don't think anyone is being "confrontational" here - we're saying "in 40 years of fandom we've never heard of this, and we'd love to see what you're basing this statement on." Simply saying "Every single reference, comment, or source of info I have ever ran across from 1966 until today, frankly" when no one else has apparently seen these references, comments, or sources of info does not a fact make.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

What this amounts to is that Matt Jefferies made up the markings, and for some unknown reason, Geoffery Mandel decided to translate them into "D-7A", and certain folks have taken Mandel's interpretations as gospel, even though they predate his actual involvement in any Star Trek production by a good twenty years.

Sorry, but even though I hold his work in pretty high esteem, there are a lot of Mandel's interpretations I strongly disagree with, and this would be one of them.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

If it was not mentioned in the series, it is not canon,so it is irrelevant.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Lloyd Collins said:


> If it was not mentioned in the series, it is not canon,so it is irrelevant.


Bingo


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Lloyd Collins said:


> If it was not mentioned in the series, it is not canon,so it is irrelevant.


I agree with you 110 percent, while at the same time in my opinion every one is entitled to their own opinion. Not trying to start a confrontaion just expressing what I think is fair.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I, too, have never heard that those markings were supposed to mean D7-A, and I've tried to keep up on most things Trek. It's possible I may have read it somewhere and not thinking much of it have long since forgotten.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

...and these comments have _what_ to do with building a Revell Enterprise?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Trek Ace said:


> ...and these comments have _what_ to do with building a Revell Enterprise?


Just something to do until an actual model gets finished and photographed...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, it'll be about a month for me, hopefully...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Slap some glue on the pieces, splash some paint on it, what can be easier? Two days, tops!


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> ...and these comments have _what_ to do with building a Revell Enterprise?


Took the words right out of my mouth.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Slap some glue on the pieces, splash some paint on it, what can be easier? Two days, tops!


With an expenditure of around fifty bucks just to get the thing (assuming you're a smart shopper), I don't think anyone is just gonna "slap some glue on the pieces" and "splash some paint on it", especially with the overall complexity of this kit. 

This ain't the 18" AMT kit with it's ten major pieces that most of us could literally build blindfolded.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Captain April said:


> With an expenditure of around fifty bucks just to get the thing (assuming you're a smart shopper), I don't think anyone is just gonna "slap some glue on the pieces" and "splash some paint on it", especially with the overall complexity of this kit.
> 
> This ain't the 18" AMT kit with it's ten major pieces that most of us could literally build blindfolded.


Good points all around.

It's definitely more complex than the old AMT kit, but still not super complex. The fit and finish are pretty good and with good clamping I don't think it should have the droopy nacelle problems of the AMT. The worst seem I've noticed is the primary hull halves, though the "interesting" location of the seem looks like it might make filling it pretty easy.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

bigdaddydaveh said:


> Still waiting to see photos of a completed kit here. Anyone?


Yes.... 

"Bueller?"

"Bueller...?"

"Bueller.......?"


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Richard Baker said:


> Just something to do until an actual model gets finished and photographed...


Then _maybe_ it's time to lock this thread for now??????:wave:


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I don't think there's any need to lock the thread. If people haven't built one yet then they ain't built one.

I'm hoping someone's picked up the hint from me for an Xmas present but failing that....I'll get one in the new year hopefully. We'll just have to wait. 

I'm surprised Revell haven't put out some really clear photo's of built examples. That's one of the reasons I started the thread as we've seen some ok pics but some of them have been a bit fuzzy.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I put this :wave: in there to indicate I was jokeing, guess I shoulda done something else.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

You guys have all the patience of a hound with a piece of steak sitting on his nose !


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Waaaiiiit... Waaaaaiiiit....


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Wow, the deatil on that fur looks fantastic! What paint did you use, is this a resin or vinyl kit, does the biscuit come with it or is it an after market add on? The ears look a little "off" to me, they should be shorter in proportion to the head and the curve of the back seem too severe, it should taper more.......!


----------



## liskorea317 (Mar 27, 2009)

John P said:


> Waaaiiiit... Waaaaaiiiit....


Wait a minute wait a minute!! Where are the nacelles? Where are the bussard collectors! Where's the impulse engine? Sheesh! Model companies just don't care about details anymore!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Just at all the oversized Grid Lines- they should just be penciled. I refuse to buy that doggy in the window.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

The Original Spaniel was best.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Also, does it come with parts so the builder can choose between neutered and non-neutered?!!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This must be the pilot version. The series production version has spinning lights in the eyes.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

The new movie version has the ears raising up just before the dog leaps forward. Will anyone try to model that?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Which photo should we use as a paint reference? The one in the post, or the OP's profile pic? There are subtle differences and I want to make sure I get it right.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Paulbo said:


> Which photo should we use as a paint reference? The one in the post, or the OP's profile pic? There are subtle differences and I want to make sure I get it right.


The posted photo has a more green look to the gray where as the profile picture hues more to the blue side. Which is correct? Did ILM alter it when it was boarded there?


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

RSN said:


> Also, does it come with parts so the builder can choose between neutered and non-neutered?!!


Depends. Are there balls included for the ends of the nacelles or not?


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

These are the dog days of modeling.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

RSN said:


> Also, does it come with parts so the builder can choose between neutered and non-neutered?!!


Are you sure that's not spayed or nonspayed?????


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That sounds mighty personal...


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

irishtrek said:


> Are you sure that's not spayed or nonspayed?????


Not if it is an exterior part, those would be interior parts, unless you are doing a cutaway! :thumbsup:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Cutaway, now don't you think that would hurt the dog???? Or is that JohnP with the biscuit on the nose??????


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I could post some photos of me modeling in a swimsuit, while we wait.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I could post some photos of me modeling in a swimsuit, while we wait.


And finally the one post that ensures this thread is closed has been made


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I could post some photos of me modeling in a swimsuit, while we wait.




On second thoughts............better close the thread!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I could post some photos of me modeling in a swimsuit, while we wait.


Hold on Lloyd. Let us put on our blast goggles first...










OK... all set...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

_We'll meet again
Don't know where
Don't know when
But I know we'll meet again
Some sunny day....
_


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

:lol:!!!!!

For the record, ol' Mort was ball-free. He's shown in his later color scheme of gray and white, as opposed to his early scheme of black and white.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Captain April said:


> _We'll meet again_
> _Don't know where_
> _Don't know when_
> _But I know we'll meet again_
> _Some sunny day...._


 
As a former SAC troop (though much much later than when this movie depicted) I've yet to see a funnier Air Force-centric movie than this. Not many non-Air Force-centric movies either for that matter.

Major Kong: "Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.? - RIP Slim Pickens!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I could post some photos of me modeling in a swimsuit, while we wait.


Can you all say bad visual??????:freak:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I'm disappointed, and I had a great shot.

I guess it's back to waiting on the 1701 build.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I'm disappointed, and I had a great shot.
> 
> I guess it's back to waiting on the 1701 build.


Got any cards? I'm up for a game of FizBin...


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Richard Baker said:


> Got any cards? I'm up for a game of FizBin...


It is a dark and rainy Friday where I am, so by the rules, I can't play today!


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

Waning moon.... you can play if you have the letter Q in your name.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Richard Baker said:


> Got any cards? I'm up for a game of FizBin...


I only play Fizbin on Friday nights. Helps the odds enough to make things really interesting.:thumbsup:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I only play Fizbin on Friday nights. Helps the odds enough to make things really interesting.:thumbsup:


Hey, hey, hey, it's friday night so some body break out the deck of cards!!!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

irishtrek said:


> Hey, hey, hey, it's friday night so some body break out the deck of cards!!!


We really need a proper deck of fizbin cards. The last set I saw was on Beta Antares.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Beta Antares??!? I know a cafe where the women are so ---


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Lets go see!


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

Short of rebuilding sections completely, I'm just going to make cosmetic alterations.

To this end, after taking most of the flab off the lower saucer, I'm looking at the neck - it doesn't look right to me (the PL kit does!) but side by side to the PL kit, it doesn't look too bad - maybe a bit long or too narrow where it meets the secondary hull?

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d134/maximumUK/sidebyside.jpg

steve


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

it ain't pretty - but its the best I can do until I can get my hands on some design software....

Using Alan Sinclairs excellent blueprints, I've done some simple overlays - I know when you do this the angle of the camera makes a difference so to start with I've focused on the neck near the bottom/front.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d134/maximumUK/side2.jpg

it doesn't quite match up but should't be too hard to fix....

There's a few areas that don't really work so well. The navigational deflector as others have pointed out is totally wrong - essentially a tube with very little taper - but the worst thing is that the housing on the secondary hull that it attaches to is too short

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d134/maximumUK/side3.jpg

Plus, the lower hull is too short:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d134/maximumUK/DSC02559.jpg

extending the hull is going to be a pain - in either direction - tho I'm an a mood for extensive re-working (I'm not very good at it though!)

Steve


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Bay7 said:


> Short of rebuilding sections completely, I'm just going to make cosmetic alterations.
> 
> To this end, after taking most of the flab off the lower saucer, I'm looking at the neck - it doesn't look right to me (the PL kit does!) but side by side to the PL kit, it doesn't look too bad - maybe a bit long or too narrow where it meets the secondary hull?
> 
> ...


Ah, I see the problem... yeah, the Revell kit's "aspect ratio" (in this case, comparing the length of the top edge to the length of the bottom edge) is wrong. It has about twice as much tapering as it ought to have, it seems.

Again, entirely acceptable if this is supposed to represent "some starship," and even perhaps a Constitution (built at another yard).. but not the Enterprise.

There's no practical way, short of replacing the neck, to fix this particular detail.

I'm wondering... was there some version of the 1701 (perhaps the animated series version?) showing that much taper? Or is it just a total screw-up?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Comparing a 2 dimensnional drawing to a 3 d model is not the most accurate way to do it. For placement of windows is one thing but for seeing if the contours are correct is a _very bad idea_ in my opinion, way too many chances to get it wrong some how.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I don't suppose anyone is just gonna build the damn thing...?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Good question!


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Captain April said:


> I don't suppose anyone is just gonna build the damn thing...?


A german fellow modeler is just building one:

http://www.phoxim.de/forum/index.php?topic=3931.0


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Hate to say it, but I think what they did to the front of the secondary hull bothers me more than the grid lines.


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

irishtrek said:


> Comparing a 2 dimensnional drawing to a 3 d model is not the most accurate way to do it. For placement of windows is one thing but for seeing if the contours are correct is a _very bad idea_ in my opinion, way too many chances to get it wrong some how.


Oh I don't know, you can see that there's something very off in the contours of the forward secondary hull, half way down the page 

http://www.phoxim.de/forum/index.php?topic=3931.0

The area is waaaay too short and that tallys with overlaying the ship over the plans - remember, it's only half a ship.

Steve


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

It looks great lit up. I'll definitely make it as some other starship--life's too short to spend half of it correcting what's wrong with this thing, but it looks like a fun build and a great lighting platform. I've got the MR Enterprise so I'll probably do the big Round2 kit as the pilot version.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Hmmm... seeing that German build-up, all lit up like that, does make it quite clear that the windows are "oversized" when compared to the "real" Enterprise. Those windows are something like 5-1/2 feet tall, in-scale, aren't they?

Again, that's not "bad" if we're talking about some other ship... but the Enterprise windows were something like 3' tall, in-scale. It just, to my eyes, makes the overall ship seem smaller. Anyone else get that same impression?

Also... it may just be an artifact of digital photography, but it sure looked like the builder was using blue LEDs. If not blue, then likely "cool white" LEDs. To best match the TOS ship, you can use LEDs, but you need to use "warm white" LEDs, which are more shifted to the yellow, rather than the blue, range. I've recently started playing with the "Warm white" LEDs... they're far superior when lighting something intended to represent a human-habitable space, rather than some "alien, high-tech" environment. The yellow-tinted light better matches both natural sunlight and conventional in-home incandescent lighting (which, thankfully, we'll still be allowed to use in the USA now!)


----------



## publiusr (Jul 27, 2006)

Bay7 said:


> it ain't pretty - but its the best I can do until I can get my hands on some design software....
> 
> Using Alan Sinclairs excellent blueprints, I've done some simple overlays Steve


I was wondering if it might be possible do do a photocopier type model shoot. It is a hard thing to line up a 3D object to a 2 D drawing on the screen. The only way to do it accurately is to have a bar shaped CCD and to pass this bar over the model lengthwise in some fashion. Do this on the aft view and you lose the sense of perspective--but it might be a better way of comparing 2D and 3D subjects...

Grid lines never bothered me a bit one way or the other.


----------



## John F (May 31, 2001)

Well, here's mine a work in progress. I'm going to light it using a warp board that I liberated from my NX-01. 

The pics are a little large.

I've started with the saucer.

First I blacked out the interiors



















Then shot them with silver



















The warp board...










... and a pile of led's (I still need to do some more)










Lighting in place





















This is all I've got so far, I had to order more led's for the nacelles, but I won't see those untill after the new year.


John


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Bay7 said:


> Oh I don't know, you can see that there's something very off in the contours of the forward secondary hull, half way down the page
> 
> http://www.phoxim.de/forum/index.php?topic=3931.0
> 
> ...


the forward end of the secondary hull looks just plain _ugh!!!_. and one does not need to compare drawings of the ship to models in order to see the inaccuracies for this particular model kit.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

White will do a much better job of scattering the light than silver.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Too be honest, seeing photos of the German guys build up, doesn't change my opinion of the kit. The inaccuracies just scream out at you!


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

spock62 said:


> Too be honest, seeing photos of the German guy's build up, doesn't change my opinion of the kit. The inaccuracies just scream out at you!


I totally agree.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> White will do a much better job of scattering the light than silver.


True, but the silver is more opaque according to the experts. I suspect that a good coating of silver with white on top of that would do the trick for lighting the inside.:thumbsup:


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Oversize windows are better than undersize.
You can simply get the size you want with masking tape and paint (provided you fill and sand the windows flush).


----------



## Vindi (Mar 20, 2009)

For some reason the Revel 'E' reminds me more of the animated Star Trek 'E' than the TOS 'E'


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> True, but the silver is more opaque according to the experts. I suspect that a good coating of silver with white on top of that would do the trick for lighting the inside.:thumbsup:


Absolutely correct. The metal flakes suspended in the paint carrier block light far more effectively than any mere pigment can. In general, the scheme I use is (a) black, then (b) silver, then (c) whatever "real" color would be present in the environment (which, in the case of a TOS Trek ship, is a sort of pale blue-grey color for walls, a sort of tan for the flooring, and red and grey striping for the ceiling).

Of course, that's what you do if you want lots of "localized" lighting, to look realistic through the windows. But, as CRA points out, to get the best luminance bang-for-your-buck, you're better off with a final coat of gloss white.

My thoughts, anyway. for a ship like the Revell kit... I'd just go with an eggshell white color. But for the big TOS kit, I fully intend to have literal "interior set-pieces" with proper paint schemes, and "warm white" LEDs providing internal lighting.


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

All that lighting work for a piece of...oh I say nothing- just a waste of good plastic. Apparently near zero effort was spent by Revell to research this subject. The thing just looks out of whack from every aspect.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

If you don't like the model, fine, but I don't think it is fair to be putting down the work of someone who is actually building a model.


----------



## sunburn800 (Nov 24, 2006)

*starship?*

Well this model is not the connie we have come to know for all most 50 years . but it could be the next upgrade for the class. Thats how i see it.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

spindrift said:


> All that lighting work for a piece of...oh I say nothing- just a waste of good plastic. Apparently near zero effort was spent by Revell to research this subject. The thing just looks out of whack from every aspect.


No, no, no, no, no, lots of effort was spent on the research. _*Too much.*_ Instead of focusing on one version, say, the eleven footer, they tried to incorporate something from _all_ versions. Eleven footer, three footer, animated version, current botched paint job, etc. Hence, the contradictions.

As far as I'm concerned, it's close enough. For one thing, I'm tired of doing major surgery on kits and still only coming close.

I'll be reserving my nitpicky concerns for the 1/350 kit.


----------



## Jay Chladek (Apr 17, 2001)

spindrift said:


> All that lighting work for a piece of...oh I say nothing- just a waste of good plastic. Apparently near zero effort was spent by Revell to research this subject. The thing just looks out of whack from every aspect.


Here we go again. More than enough bandwidth has been wasted in the "this kit sucks" pile on posts. Making a comment that the lighting project is wasted is in poor taste because you are now attacking somebody else's choice to buy and light said kit. So you may not like this bowl of cereal, but don't have to eat it or take a dump in someone else's.

As for me, I still have plans to get a DLM lighting kit to "waste" on this model as I also agree it makes a perfect subject for a first lighting project. I may try one fix to the secondary hull, but otherwise I will build it OOB (replacing the flat intercooler looks with AMT ones) and probably have fun doing it in the process. Besides, whatever happened to just having fun BUILDING a model without having to worry about a bunch of kit corrections?

BTW, you do NOT have to put black down first as a light blocker. Silver or most any other metallic can do the job in one or two spray passes just fine since the metallic particles aren't transparent. Then you can cover it with white to diffuse the light better. I know, I've done the black first layer myself, but I tried it on a lighted K-7 project I've been working on and it worked perfectly, even on the outside of the model where I needed to fix a light leak.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

spindrift said:


> Apparently near zero effort was spent by Revell to research this subject.


You're just a wee bit wrong about no research because they did the research many years ago and assued they had it correct, when in fact they were extremely mistaken..............:tongue::tongue::tongue::tongue:


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Jay Chladek said:


> BTW, you do NOT have to put black down first as a light blocker. Silver or most any other metallic can do the job in one or two spray passes just fine since the metallic particles aren't transparent. Then you can cover it with white to diffuse the light better. I know, I've done the black first layer myself, but I tried it on a lighted K-7 project I've been working on and it worked perfectly, even on the outside of the model where I needed to fix a light leak.


That's good to know. I've always used black first, then silver or white. But suppose it makes sense. Easier to cover the silver with the white than black, so that's a great tip. And as for the ship being off, it is, but I'm still looking forward to seeing how this fellow's build turns out. Should be interesting. 

Brad.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I usually put a coat of semi-gloss black on the OUTSIDE of any kit molded in white. It gives the resulting light paint job a little depth and prevents the translucent look that white plastic gets--I tend to do this even for kits that I'm not putting lighting into. Maybe overkill but I started noticing light bleedthrough in white-colored models where I haven't done this.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> . . . But for the big TOS kit, I fully intend to have literal "interior set-pieces" with proper paint schemes, and "warm white" LEDs providing internal lighting.


COOL idea! :thumbsup:

At 1/350th, that's a bit more do-able and should give a more realistic look to it.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> COOL idea! :thumbsup:
> 
> At 1/350th, that's a bit more do-able and should give a more realistic look to it.


Yep... that's my intent, anyway. The trick to making this work is to find out a way of having windows you can see through.

I finally decided that having actual optical-quality glass windows, in a scale-appropriate thickness, was ideal. I thought that was very tough, but then I realized that microscope slide slipcovers are really ideal. The trick is to find a glass-cutter suitable for the thickness and precision needed. And, of course, to find an appropriate glass-compatible adhesive. But these little glass windows really do look fantastic... far better than any plastic windows could ever be.

Without something like that, it's largely a waste of time to spend much effort on that sort of "interior set." You can leave the glass out, though... and that could work nicely as well, though you'll have a hard time getting the dust out over time!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Hopefull, just another couple of weeks and I can celebrate a late Christmas with one of these suckers and that old long box UFO Mystery Ship (definitely the UFO, since I'm kind of committed on that front...).


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

the kits growing on me its just the price, best to wait for the 1/350 TOS


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

There's a shop on eBay, probably the same one that Master Chladek got his, that has them available for a grand total (kit + shipping) of around fifty bucks, depending on the exchange rate.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Thanks John F for the pics and to Marco for the link!


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I have my suspicions that someone took the hint......so I might ket this kit tomorrow. Hopefully.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I've ordered the Revell D-7. When I can afford, the Enterprise is next on my list.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> . . . You can leave the glass out, though... and that could work nicely as well, though you'll have a hard time getting the dust out over time!


Leaving the glass out is typically what was done with special effects models. The glass caused a lot of problems for the old special effects compositing methods and probably causes problems still where models are used. Leave the windows out and have a small can of air like used for cleaning computers and you're good to go:thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The main problem was with reflections from the lights, especially for those directors who consider lens flares to be a *bad* thing.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Well someone took my hint and I got this kit (plus the AMT Spock). First impressions are (accuracy issues aside).......very nicely moulded, nice clear parts, surprisingly I found the engraved lines a bit wider on the body than on the grid pattern......this surprised me as I thought it would be the other way around from the photo's I've seen. Lines are a bit wider than they should be yes but I don't mind them.

All in all looks like a nice kit that will build very easily. More parts than I thought though so no wonder nobody's put any finished pics up yet.


----------



## John F (May 31, 2001)

did some more work on the enterprise, well the electronics anyway.
I've got one of the spinning nacelle lights working.
Click on the image to see a short video, it's a little fuzzy
my camera kinda washed it out alittle.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

:thumbsup: Looking good!
-Jim


----------



## John F (May 31, 2001)

Thanks Jim 
but, an hour after I posted this the red led's stopped working, I think they burned out, so I'm going to do it again with all orange.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Yeah, for some reason RED leds are trouble. Don't quite know why that is.
-Jim


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Then why not paint white LEDs with clear red paint, or is that even possible????? Just a thought.


----------



## nautilusnut (Jul 9, 2008)

Fingernail polish works great and comes in all colors.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

irishtrek said:


> Then why not paint white LEDs with clear red paint, or is that even possible????? Just a thought.


That's the ticket.

I find that "staining" warm-white LEDs with Tamiya clear acrylic paint gives the best results in achieving different colored lights. Custom colors can also be mixed with available Tamiya colors. The best thing is that you are using the same amount of power for each LED, rather than needing x number of volts for red, another voltage for green, a third for blue, etc.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

nautilusnut said:


> Fingernail polish works great and comes in all colors.


But, are they clear in nature or opaqe??


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

irishtrek said:


> Then why not paint white LEDs with clear red paint, or is that even possible????? Just a thought.


Yep. Some guys just dip the LED into the bottle.


----------



## John F (May 31, 2001)

SteveR said:


> Yep. Some guys just dip the LED into the bottle.


 That's what I did 10 of each, red, yellow and orange.

It wasn't the led's that failed on me last night, it was my own stupidity. I put the board down on something, probably a piece of scrap led leg, and shorted something out, which caused the leds to blow. had to replace 2 transistors and then rebuilt the disc and it seems to be working fine, been running for half an hour now.

I'll build up the second one tommorow, then try to fit it all into the model.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Finally got that one on eBay! Twenty quid, plus another eleven for shipping (I'm afraid to look closer to see how that translates into US dollars, but I'd say it still settles out at around fifty bucks).

Should show up around the end of the month, along with that sonic screwdriver (which, thankfully, I got a very good deal on).


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Trek Ace said:


> That's the ticket.
> 
> I find that "staining" warm-white LEDs with Tamiya clear acrylic paint gives the best results in achieving different colored lights. Custom colors can also be mixed with available Tamiya colors. The best thing is that you are using the same amount of power for each LED, rather than needing x number of volts for red, another voltage for green, a third for blue, etc.


I've taken to dipping the clear white LED in white fluorescent acrylic paint. After about 15 minutes it's dry enough to paint over with whatever final acrylic color you want. The more opaque the better. 
I did that for the bussard in this pic: 


















The fluorescnet white paint allows the light to glow in all directions like an incandescent would. 

Here's a pic of a Romulan BOP bussard with blue painted over the white acrylic:


----------



## John F (May 31, 2001)

*whew!*

I got the second spinner running. I surprised my self, it worked after the first try !

click on the pic to see the video.



John


----------

