# Galileo Study Model - half studio scale replica



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Over the weekend I sketched out plans of the Galileo studio model based on reference photos I had on hand and decided that I should cross check them by building a model. When I looked at doing a studio scale representation, it knocked itself out of what I could afford (in both time and money) right now... but half studio scale seemed to be okay.

This model takes a back seat to the 33 inch TOS Enterprise, but any time I find myself some free time (I'm waiting for materials to be shipped to me to make molds and cast the first major parts of that model), I'll throw some effort in this projects direction.


_Click to enlarge_​
Today I printed out templates and started cutting out parts... not much to it so far.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Looks good so far!

I'll be following this.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Off to a good start!


----------



## BOXIE (Apr 5, 2011)

Looking forward to finding some tips for my build.Finally getting time to tackle my stash.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Still yet another of your projects that I'll be following with much interest. Who knows, maybe you'll kick start me into working on my Galileo again. It was going to have a 1/24 interior and I really don't care what the exterior scales to. Hope you have a great New Year!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

So by half size studio scale are you referring to the 3/4 scale mockup,
or the 20-something inch filming miniature?

There are some very pronounced differences between the two.

Also, when you say 1/2 studio scale size, you could be going with four different sizes . . .

Half of the actual length of the external walk-on-off 3/4 scale stage piece, which was over 22 feet long,

Half of what that stage piece would have been had it been at 1:1 scale, 
about 29.5 feet long,

Half of the actual length of the external walk-on-off 3/4 scale stage piece would have been had it been capable of holding a full-sized as-seen-onscreen interior, which would have had to have been only a hair or two shorter then 33 feet long,

or fourthly, half of the filming miniature, which would make it a 11 to 12 inches long, as close as I can recall off the top of my head at the moment?

Which of these four sizes will this version be, Shaw?



Inquiring minds wanna know! 


And will there be an attempt at an interior?


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks guys! :thumbsup:


This is a study of the original filming model, so it'll be about 11 inches long when I'm finished. People have devoted a ton of effort in studying the large mockup version, so there didn't really seem to be a need for that. I've already done a study of the interior set (for Starship Exeter), so there isn't any need to do that. But people have generally ignored the studio model, so I figured I'd spend some time documenting it.

Like a lot of my research, this is a study of the model _as a model_, so because the original didn't have an interior, neither will this one.

Right now I'm trying to decide if I should make the face plate removable. This isn't going to be a lit model, so there isn't a good reason to include this feature. On this study model I might just include a panel line representing where the seem would have been.

I've also been studying the decal placement on the original model, noting differences from other decals using in the series. One thing I noticed is that _Galileo_ seems more italicized than on the larger mockup.


_Click to enlarge_​
I'll keep working at it until I feel it's right.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

There is a 99.999999999999999999999999% chance you are already aware of this, but the filming miniature is a bit more wedge shaped from front to back(as seen from above and below the model. Also there is a slight "toe-in" slant to the nacelles as a result.

It's been quite awhile since I closely studied the filming miniature. Does anyone know where it is now?


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I went into this study with that assumption, but wasn't able to support it with the reference images I have. What I ended up with was lots of parallel lines. I know that the "toe-in" is the case on the large scale mockup, but it doesn't appear to be the same with the studio model.

This gives further weight to the idea that not only was the large scale mockup scaled down, but was also a forced perspective set piece chiefly intended to be filmed from the rear.

The model is currently part of the Smithsonian's collection. Unfortunately when it was restored it was made to look more like the large scale mockup rather than restoring it to it's original filming state.








Granted that the model was missing some parts (including the face plate) and had been painted a uniform gray color, but there were enough images of the model from the series to at least make an attempt to match them.

Oh well.


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

Okay, here I go again-- stirring up a hornet's nest...

In all the discussions I've read of the 'scale' of the full-sized set-piece versus what we see as the filming model, I can't recall anyone making the point that 'if' the full-sized set piece was done at 3/4 the size it was actually intended to be, then why was the FX model built at 1:12 scale to the set piece instead of 1:12 scale of the what was intended to be full-size?

The set was 22 feet long and the model is 22 inches long, making it 1:12 scale. Extrapolating from the 22 foot dimension, you divide by 3 and then multiply by 4 to get 29.33 feet. At 1:12 scale, the model should be 29.3 inches long. If the scale was 1:16, the model scales out to 22 inches, though. But, just like Gibbs, I don't believe in coincidence, so I have to toss that result. We're dealing with common scales and 1:16 is 3/4 of 1:12, so naturally that works out. I have to go with the reality of being able to measure the model with a common ruler or tape measure. It was and still is one of the things Art Directors do!

The interesting thing is that the only reason any of this is being discussed is because people want to put an accurate interior into something that was not designed to accommodate that. I've never seen the interview with Matt Jefferies where he said the ship was designed as an exercise in forced perspective. It is more likely it was designed to go onto a trailer and taken to location and not have to worry about oversized loads. 

I think the only way it could be said to be forced perspective is in the episode with the giants. It just made them look bigger than they were given they were just really big guys who were supposed to look 10 feet tall. It didn't work, but that was the intention. Just the way the set was filmed in that episode and the others, tells me they were not considering it to be 'forced perspective'. In practice, the actors were climbing in and out of a 22 foot long spaceship.

Scott


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

CaptCBoard said:


> Okay, here I go again-- stirring up a hornet's nest...


Actually, that is a good question, and I'll address it the best I can from my research...

Jefferies was a pragmatist. And spaceship miniatures don't need to deal with real world objects... so the sizes of the models were mainly based on what he could fit on the page.

Pardon my language, but _screw scale_... the model is 22 inches because at that size the plans fit nicely on a single 24x 36 sheet of paper and makes for a nice size model for filming. The size of the TOS Enterprise models were one-to-one and 4x what was drawn on the page, which was 24x36. Take one of the Klingon studio scale models and a 24x36 sheet of paper... it fits on the page. Jefferies tried to get smart with the Phase II Enterprise by folding the design back on itself along lines of symmetry to fit the final size model one-to-one on a 24x36 sheet of paper.

Honestly, I'd bet that they took the plans for the model, changed a couple things on it, handed it to Gene Winfield and said _build this at 12x, see ya in a few weeks._ And when Jefferies said _three-quarter_ scale, I doubt that is a precise measurement... it was most likely a ball park figure off the top of his head.

The shuttlecraft was made in the pressure cooker of production during the first season... I'm not too worried about how it fits into the rest of TOS (much of which Jefferies got to think about for more than a year between the first pilot and the beginning of series production).

Did a lot of stuff work? Yeah, surprisingly well. So I'm more than willing to overlook where things didn't.

In the end, this project isn't about the fictional scale of the shuttlecraft, it is only about attempting to document the original features of the real physical artifact as it was originally built. Like my plans of the two Enterprise models, I'm not worried about their fictional scales, just their real world features and construction.

Kerr is working on making an idealized version for Round 2 that deals with the fictional size of the shuttlecraft, I'll let him deal with the scale issues (after all, he is getting paid for his work... I'm not). :thumbsup:



As for this model, some more progress shots...








Most everything in those images is either taped together or set in place... there is still a long ways to go.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I love this idea! You are building a half scale model to a physical filming miniature. No scale problems to get bogged down with, or how to fit an "accurate" interior, just build it how we saw it. Can't wait to see this one through!


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

I echo RSN in praising the idea of replicating the miniature without modifying anything to accommodate an interior and I wish you well in this endeavor. It is something I wish I could get to myself!

Scott


----------



## seaview62 (Nov 30, 2012)

CaptCBoard said:


> I echo RSN in praising the idea of replicating the miniature without modifying anything to accommodate an interior and I wish you well in this endeavor. It is something I wish I could get to myself!
> 
> Scott


I agree!:thumbsup:


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks guys!

The overall goal is to (someday) provide plans of all the models used in TOS _as models_. This is intended to not only document the models themselves, but also to highlight the craftsmanship and artistry of those people that made them and helped bring Star Trek to us.

Currently I've compiled my research into drawings of the 11 foot model of the Enterprise (including details on the non-filming side elements), the 33 inch model, the two 3 inch models and the 1966 AMT model kit. Although I've spent some time studying the Klingon models, this represents my first serious effort to document a non-Enterprise model.

Will anything ever come of all this? I don't know. You guys have all been supportive of my endeavors, I'm just not sure there is a broader audience for this stuff. 

Thanks again for the encouragement!


----------



## Richard38 (Apr 16, 2002)

Shaw,

It sounds like it is a good time for a book. "The real Models of Star Trek" All you need is the Tholian and Romulan ships and K-7 time to get cracking 

Richard


----------



## Dave in RI (Jun 28, 2009)

I would buy that book; preferably signed by the author.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Shaw said:


> I went into this study with that assumption, but wasn't able to support it with the reference images I have. What I ended up with was lots of parallel lines. I know that the "toe-in" is the case on the large scale mockup, but it doesn't appear to be the same with the studio model.
> 
> This gives further weight to the idea that not only was the large scale mockup scaled down, but was also a forced perspective set piece chiefly intended to be filmed from the rear.
> 
> ...


There are a couple of pics of the underside of the underside of the 22" filming miniature that were posted in one or more of the "Bob Villa" Galileo threads that show
the tapering, etc I was talking about,

I'd dig for them myself but have to go out the door at the moment. 

They are still here on Hobbytalk somewhere, unless they are among the few hundred Galileo thread post that a past moderator accidentally erased. 

I might still have a copy somewhere myself, assuming the pics aren't on one of my many fried drives I have a stack off. 

If you can't find them I'll try to find them for you.

There are some significant differences in the filming miniature's underside and nacelle details as well.

Gotta run!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^Here you go, Shaw.

Please note these guesstimations on the shuttle length are from:

1) January 2004

and 

2) Do not include a measurement of the rear landing strut, which in the filming miniature may have easily ended up making the overall length a good deal over
21.5x inches - even if not quite 22 inches long.

Hope this helps! 

The wedging is clearly visible in this picture.

Ignore the filename, the "suggestion" mentioned in the filename is a note from me to FourMadMen.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I do have that shot, and I'll take another look at it along with my other references.

Generally when I'm doing a photo study of a model I'll take as much data from any given photo and average it with similar data from other photos on a weighted scale. So, for example, if I can reconstruct where the camera is in relation to the model, then I can also take into account perspective distortions.

This is an example of the technique with a shot of the Enterprise...


_Click to enlarge_​
So in the case of the 33 inch Enterprise, once I had a good general idea of the over all shape of the model, I could use that as a gauge for reverse engineering any photos and work out the finer details (such as contours). I did the same thing for the 11 foot model... though there are a significantly greater number of images to work with for it.

If you have a less blurry first generation version of that shot, that would be very helpful in better defining the camera position and upping the photos weight in my analysis.

I'll still take another look at it... I can make mistakes. There are big differences between my first, second and third versions of my 33 inch Enterprise plans done over the course of 4 years and two study models. The study models help with my understanding of the subject.



Speaking of study models, here are a few more progress shots...








I've started on the nacelles and the supports. Right now I'm mainly making sure that a slot fit attachment system on them works correctly before worrying too much about the final contours and details of the parts. The idea is that the nacelles will be the last thing attached after all the painting is done. That way I won't have to fight the model to make sure things are getting even coverage or making sure areas are correctly masked.

The rear landing strut is, at this point, a work in progress... maybe even a first try. It didn't take that long to make, so I might take another stab at it.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Shaw, your work is inspiring.

What size body tube are you using for the nacelles? BT-50?

To further muddle the water. The wedge shape of the shuttlecraft could have
been put in by Matt Jeffereies for stability in atmospheric flight. A slight wedge
shape would give it some natural stability in yaw without a vertical stabilizer.
The blunt aft end would add a lot of drag, but I've always assumed the vertical
slots on the aft are a Newtonian engine.
The stub wings would give it some natural pitch/roll stability.

Or maybe I'm way over thinking this.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

All lenses have some level of distortion, that is also something you have to take into consideration. Even my most expensive SLR lenses need corrections applied when creating panoramas.

If you know the lens used for an image you can sometimes look up what type(s) of distortion it has and how pronounced they are.

So trying to figure out if something has a slight wedge shape would take quite a few pictures taken with different lenses from different angles. Or one image with a huge amount of information on the camera, lens, and positions of the camera and subject.

Edit:

Is that picture of the bottom of the model available unedited? If I use the nacelles as straight parts of the model and do a perspective correction most of the wedge shape goes away:


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

mach7 said:


> Shaw, your work is inspiring.
> 
> What size body tube are you using for the nacelles? BT-50?


Thanks!

I'm using BT-20, but I used BT-50 to make the nacelle master for my Phase II Enterprise.










mach7 said:


> To further muddle the water. The wedge shape of the shuttlecraft could have
> been put in by Matt Jeffereies for stability in atmospheric flight. A slight wedge
> shape would give it some natural stability in yaw without a vertical stabilizer.
> The blunt aft end would add a lot of drag, but I've always assumed the vertical
> ...


But isn't that why we like the shuttlecraft? I really like *Warped9*'s version as far as a hybrid of the different versions we saw on screen.



MartyS said:


> All lenses have some level of distortion, that is also something you have to take into consideration.
> 
> ...


Gosh, I hope you don't think that everything I do in the way of analysis could be encapsulated in a few sentences and a simplified diagram from 5 years ago. A treatise on my techniques won't be posted in this or any other threads, I was only giving a small example using a graphic I already had on hand on my site.

The problem with that photo is that I don't know enough about it's origin and how the file was originally produced. Is it a digital image, a photo of a photo or a scan of a photo? It has been edited a number of times, have distortions been added? It is blurry which makes edge definition tricky. This is why I don't use a single image and use a weighted scoring of the data from any photo when compiling.

The other issue is that this is a post _restoration_ image in which the model was made to look more like the large scale mockup... I don't know the full range of modifications that were applied to the model in that process.

So yeah, I have a lot of photos (including this one)... but it scored poorly with all these factors and it's data didn't carry as much weight in the end.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Shaw said:


> Gosh, I hope you don't think that everything I do in the way of analysis could be encapsulated in a few sentences and a simplified diagram from 5 years ago.
> 
> ....
> 
> So yeah, I have a lot of photos (including this one)... but it scored poorly with all these factors and it's data didn't carry as much weight in the end.


Sorry, I was mostly talking about the post with that image, since it's not a good one to judge if there is a wedge shape to the sides of the hull (especially since a few minutes of perspective correction reduces it to almost nothing). I really have no idea how much you know about optics...


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

A subject near and dear to my heart!! I know you will do a fantastic job and I am looking forward to your progress.


Will


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks!

It is a first study model that I'm knocking out rather quickly to get a feel for the design. If it ends up looking like a TOS shuttlecraft in the end I'll consider that a success. If it makes for a good representation of the filming miniature, I'll be amazed!

At least it shows that I can make models of more than just the Enterprise. :tongue:



I've made a little more progress...








... mostly on the underside of the model. The top looks like it'll come together without much work, so I'm putting off gluing those parts in place until I finish dealing with the bottom.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

It'll be a beauty.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks!


A little more progress...








... again, mostly on the underside of the model.

I've also done additional image studies on the markings...


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

A little more progress... this time testing the arrangement of some of the aft elements and a look at the underside of the model








The pin on the underside is held there by a super strong magnet, which is going to be the mounting point for the model to attach to the display base.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I spent some time playing with the decal arrangement today. Because I'll be drawing all this stuff out by hand in an EPS file (I don't like using pre-existing fonts for this type of thing) I want to make sure I'm happy with the placement of all the elements first.


_Click to enlarge_​
I'm actually pretty happy with what I have right now and will most likely commit to it by starting the actual decal sheet later today.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I know I have another photo from the production around of the right side of the studio prop that is more readable than this, but this is the best one that I could find on short notice. I think that the miniature had the name at a similar angle.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Oh, so painful...


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Trek Ace said:


> I know I have another photo from the production around of the right side of the studio prop that is more readable than this, but this is the best one that I could find on short notice. I think that the miniature had the name at a similar angle.


Thanks for looking that up for me.

I do have a number of shots of the port side of the large scale mockup (including a few more from when it was in that sad state), but the reason I haven't used them as a reference is that the miniature's original markings differed quite a bit from the large scale mockup's in their original configurations.








Today the "restored" studio model has markings that match the large scale mockup very closely... but that isn't how it was originally.

To date the only starboard side shot I have is from an effects clip from _Journey To Babel_. Unfortunately between it being blurry and there being a reflection off the side obscuring the markings, there isn't any way to get any good data from those images.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I realize this is likely not a popular opinion, but I still question if there was a Galileo logo on the starboard side. Given the stylized design, it doesn't lend itself to a symmetrical application, giving me the thought the 'name' may well have been not really an official StarFleet thing but more a 'crew morale' thing, or something. 

Not quite reaching the level of 'bomber nose art' but...call it 'second cousin' to the concept. 

I know I'm sure I'm delving too deep in trying to identify motive from a logo, but Jefferies didn't seem to design stuff on a whim. I can't help but think if that name was meant to be applied in a symmetrical way to the shuttle, a more 'friendly' design would have been made. 

And yes, it can be argued that the thought process only went so far as to "what we see on Camera" and the starboard side wasn't going to get much screen time because it was just a big, flat space so don't even think about it, but that just kind of bugs me, because you don't KNOW what a director is going to want, or what a future script might call for, and there's no practical reason to leave the stbd side unfinished (unlike the 11 foot Miniature and it's snake nest of wiring).

Mind, I can barely see the logo on that poor, ratty pic of the stbd. side, but I note it's not applied in a symmetrical way mirroring the port side. It almost looks like it is close to intruding on the 'space' where the hatch would be if that were the port side.

I dunno. It could likely be argued to death.  Something about the idea of there being just one logo, on the port side near the hatch, just appeals to my sensibilities. Makes it more...human.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I've had similar feelings on the subject... plus leaving it blank would be an honest acknowledgement that I really don't know.

I'm still a ways off from actually committing to any of these ideas by putting the decals on the model, so it is good to bounce ideas around with you guys to see what options their might be available.

:thumbsup:


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I glued together some of the upper hull elements. Haven't worried about puttying or sanding yet, I want to let the glue fully cure for a while. It is being held up in these images by the magnet inside that will eventually hold it to the display stand.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Really gorgeous work that you do. I can only shake my head in admiration.

Edit: somehow I missed seeing your decal art on page 1 till just now. Your alternate stbd shows how "Galileo" was tilted on the ST movie shuttles. Perhaps they knew something we don't?


----------



## Shado1980 (Jul 15, 2009)

Looks great so far! I like seeing this broken down into doable sections. It inspires me to tackle this project myself. Just on a smaller scale.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks guys!




starseeker said:


> Your alternate stbd shows how "Galileo" was tilted on the ST movie shuttles. Perhaps they knew something we don't?


Well, it actually looks a lot like how the studio models starboard side looks today... which isn't too surprising considering that I think Greg Jein had a hand in the movie shuttlecrafts and he is the current owner of the studio model (and the one who restored the model to look the way it does now).

But you are right in that Jein might have some insight as he was most likely the last person to see the original markings configuration. Sadly, I don't think he was making any mental notes of how it looked.



Someone on another forum has asked about the lines on the top of my model. These represent seam lines that were visible on the studio model because they weren't fully filled in. They were hardly visible on the original and (after painting) should be hardly visible on my model.

Here is what has been added in the way of panel lines on my model...


_Click to enlarge_​
I figured I'd at least acknowledge that they were there.

I'll be doing something similar to the forward face plate, adding a panel line where the original model's face plate locked into place. This model isn't functional, so there was no good reason to match the functionality... but matching the look and feel of the original would be cool.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I'm back to the putty-sand-prime routine... mostly getting the aft elements together. I had improvised some aspects while cutting parts, which got some of the angles off when they came together... but not off by enough that I wanted to attempt to pull everything apart.

Anyways, here are some more progress shots...








I also decided to test some of the rear detail parts to see how they looked in their approximate final positions...


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

It occurs to me that one way to settle the question of the markings on the right side is to simply refer to the decal sheet for the original version of the kit. Permission to make the kit was given to AMT if they would make the FX model and FS set piece. With that in mind, AMT would probably have created the kit markings to reflect the markings on the FX model, making the decal sheet and decal placement guide in the instructions the best reference. I've never had that kit, so I am only speculating.

Scott


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

CaptCBoard said:


> It occurs to me that one way to settle the question of the markings on the right side is to simply refer to the decal sheet for the original version of the kit. Permission to make the kit was given to AMT if they would make the FX model and FS set piece. With that in mind, AMT would probably have created the kit markings to reflect the markings on the FX model, making the decal sheet and decal placement guide in the instructions the best reference. I've never had that kit, so I am only speculating.
> 
> Scott


It's a nice thought, but the instructions for decal placement of the "Galileo/Galileo II" script on the AMT kit don't quite match either the full-sized mock-up _or_ the miniature:


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Over on the Yahoo Space Modelers forum, Michelle Evan's (who wrote the best book about the X15 Ever) posted a link to her new Galileo page, with some interesting photos:
http://www.mach25media.com/galileo.html


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Excellent!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I just want to say, it is such a joy to see all of this. The work Shaw is doing, the restoring of the stage prop, the discussion, all of it.

Because these things, the Enterprise and the shuttle, are things of beauty and subtle craft. It was easy in the distant past to think of the Shuttle as 'just a butter keeper with tubes' but look, LOOK at it. Even the simplicity required by budget and materials is rife with little details that belie it being nothing more than a plywood box. Curves and bends and flares. Angles and slopes. Took a lot of work to come up with that. 

It's a good time to be a fan of this sort of thing.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks guys! I appreciate the help. More info is better then less.

Looking at AMT's original cover art for the Galileo 7, it looks like they were basing their decal placement on the large scale mockup. Also, it seemed like they lost or misplaced any original documentation they had on the shuttlecraft. The kit seems to be largely based on the Jefferies' side view and interior plan view... as seen in TMoST. Considering the details they included and the ones they missed, TMoST was most likely their primary reference for the kit.

If I were to take a guess, they most likely didn't think there would be any chance to make a shuttlecraft kit after TOS was cancelled. When Trek's popularity took off and they realized there was a market for it, they most likely used what references were easily available to design the kit.



Looking at the best shots I have of the studio model, it looks like the production team used existing signage decals from the decals sheets of the two Enterprise models. So this is most likely what I'll have in those spots on my study model...


_Click to enlarge_​
Once I have a chance to print out the decal sketches and do a test arrangement of them on the model (to make sure I didn't miss anything in my measurements), I'll start in on redrawing them for the final sheet.


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

Shaw said:


> The kit seems to be largely based on the Jefferies' side view and interior plan view... as seen in TMoST. Considering the details they included and the ones they missed, TMoST was most likely their primary reference for the kit.


AMT built both the FX model and the FS set piece (farmed out to Winfield) AND the first episode it was seen in aired in January of 1967. TMoST was published in 1968, so you'll have to figure out another reason!

Scott


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

I remember reading somewhere that Jefferies' original design was more tear-shaped and sleeker, but would never have fit in the time sched and budget (and flatbed truck delivery). Winfield got back to him with his own idea of what he could do under the constraints and MJ gave his ok.

Like everything else, it came down to what was studio-practical.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Jefferies original Shuttle looked very well planned for stage use. I would swear he had started with a surplus drop tank and worked out from there but even if not, it seemed very sleek and most of all portable. 

but then again, it seemed VERY bare bones. It would not have looked able to travel at warp speed (altho maybe he would have come up with a 'warp sled' to attach it to) and filming INSIDE the thing would have been tricky at best, even with 'wild' walls. Of course nowadays with digital cameras and all it would be a snap. 

So, yeah, TV is compromise. What we got did a pretty good job.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

CaptCBoard said:


> AMT built both the FX model and the FS set piece (farmed out to Winfield) AND the first episode it was seen in aired in January of 1967. TMoST was published in 1968, so you'll have to figure out another reason!


Not really... as I said, AMT most likely didn't keep any of the stuff from that work after TOS was cancelled because they most likely saw no future in Trek kits. Five years later Star Trek was turning out to be a merchandising gold mine and AMT had licenses to make kits... but didn't have any of the original reference materials from when they built the shuttlecrafts. I'd guess that AMT no longer had any shuttlecraft data by the beginning of 1970 (it was most likely thrown out by the end of the summer of 1969).

Go back through TMoST and gather the information included on the shuttlecraft, and then compare it to the kit produced years later (noting what features were missing from TMoST and the kit that were part of the shuttlecraft's basic design)... you'll find an amazing correlation between them.

My reasoning on this is sound, and you've given me no new information... work through the logic of facts we have on hand and you'll see that. And make sure to use everything you think you know on the subject and you'll realize my scenario fits the facts.


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

You're right. I totally forgot the kit didn't come out until 1974. So, that raises the question of why the deal was made for AMT to do the FX model and full size set piece in exchange for the license to make the kit-- and then not come out with the kit for 8 years. No argument here, I just don't know.

Scott


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I think that AMT originally thought that they had something great with Trek... it was NBC that thought it was a waste of a time slot. Because not only did AMT do the shuttlecraft for the show, they also did the Klingon (started building those models around the end of the second season to be ready for the third). I think at the time (during TOS) they thought this was a good investment (and sales of the Enterprise kit most likely influenced them into doing the Klingon studio models and kit), and then thought they lost all that when the show was cancelled.

When the popularity of the show took off in the early 70's, the one thing AMT still had was the licenses.

But yeah, I'd guess that AMT was completely baffled by the cancellation of TOS considering how popular the Enterprise kit was.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

If we're to believe Cushman's new "These are the Voyages" book, NBC's biggest problem was a hatred of Roddenberry and a desire to be rid of him.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

CaptCBoard said:


> You're right. I totally forgot the kit didn't come out until 1974. So, that raises the question of why the deal was made for AMT to do the FX model and full size set piece in exchange for the license to make the kit-- and then not come out with the kit for 8 years. No argument here, I just don't know.
> 
> Scott


Well, speculation:


1. They expected to see the Shuttle a LOT more in the show. Like it was a car or something. Or a use pattern in line with Fox's Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea and the Flying Sub. Enough exposure to justify the tooling costs. 

2. Kind of a downer, the first appearance of the Shuttle and... it's destroyed! I can see that being a giant WTF to the head office, can't you? 

3. Anybody know what AMT's total kit lineup was like in '68 and '69? Maybe they just had too much other product that was successful or thought to be successful lined up to free up production time. There were only so many injector machines available after all, and farming out production to another plastic company would impact on the profit margin. 

4. Wasn't the 'Galactic Cruiser' released after the Klingon? I seem to recall the lore that the kit did poorly, that might have made TPTB take a pause (as of course to the bean counters it's all that 'kiddy space stuff' and thus the same).

Just some thoughts. The real answer is probably a little bit of all of that.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

All I know about the Leif Ericson was that it was supposed to be the first in a series, and it didn't sell well enough to justify the series.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

John P said:


> If we're to believe Cushman's new "These are the Voyages" book, NBC's biggest problem was a hatred of Roddenberry and a desire to be rid of him.


- and -​


Steve H said:


> Well, speculation...
> 
> Just some thoughts. The real answer is probably a little bit of all of that.


I hadn't heard about NBC's problems with Roddenberry, but these all seem like contributing factors.

I know as a kid the Galileo kit stood out the most of the 70's AMT releases as inaccurate (as the rear of the shuttlecraft was featured in the show). Of course the Exploration Set didn't stand out because it was proportionally correct in size to me at the time I first got one of those (in 1976).


I wanted to see how the model looked with the nacelles in place, but not sitting. I taped the supports to the underside of the wings and they are just slot fitted to the nacelles (the actual gluing won't happen until after the painting is done), and then positioned the model on a bar. Here is how she looks so far...








There is still a long ways to go, but it feels like I'm heading in the right direction with most of it.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

I like it!


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

There's no doubt this will define perfection.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Chrisisall said:


> There's no doubt this will define perfection.


Sheesh! Not that we expect much from him.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks for the vote of confidence guys!

Hopefully I won't screw up and end up with something that looks like the AMT kit. 


So rather than print the test sheet of decals (because I'm out of ink), I figured I'd try photoshopping them onto one of the recent shots of my model I took to see how it looked...








It seems like a good starting point, but I'll still wait for the printed test to make sure before I invest a ton of time in redrawing all that stuff for the final sheet.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

One more decal test...

I was wondering what the old AMT box might have looked like with my models...








Of course it'd look better with a finished shuttlecraft (and actual decals and paint), but I was curious to see how it might have looked.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The box art was my favorite part of the AMT kit. It had that Bantam James Blish book cover look.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Shaw said:


> One more decal test...
> 
> I was wondering what the old AMT box might have looked like with my models...
> 
> ...


Technical point of order.

The shuttle was never called 'Galileo 7', that was not ever the 'callsign' nor intended as such. The fact that this was nominally "Shuttlecraft 7 of the USS Enterprise" is not relevant to the episode title, which, of course, simply referred to the 7 people on board the Galileo. 

Yes, I know, I'm a pedantic nerd.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Steve H said:


> Technical point of order.
> 
> The shuttle was never called 'Galileo 7'...
> 
> Yes, I know, I'm a pedantic nerd.


Don't look at me, I was just creating the original box art... AMT decided to call it that back in the 70's.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Technical point of order.
> 
> The shuttle was never called 'Galileo 7', that was not ever the 'callsign' nor intended as such. The fact that this was nominally "Shuttlecraft 7 of the USS Enterprise" is not relevant to the episode title, which, of course, simply referred to the 7 people on board the Galileo.
> 
> Yes, I know, I'm a pedantic nerd.


If you want to get picky, the box art is technically right since it is the Shuttlecraft used in the episode "The Galileo 7".:tongue:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

BWolfe said:


> If you want to get picky, the box art is technically right since it is the Shuttlecraft used in the episode "The Galileo 7".:tongue:


Disagree! If so, it should read "as seen in the episode 'The Galileo Seven' " and not use the 'Galileo' logomark extrapolated to include a number.

PEDANTIC! 

Mr. Shaw is just being cute, I know, it's all fun and smiles. A personal 'what-if' deal. I grok. 

Also, off topic aside, the 'These are the Voyages' volume for the third season is just out at Amazon, ordered. Gotta see what happens!


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I definitely have a ton of nostalgia for the original model kit (in the same way I do for the _Exploration Set_ kit), but what this model really reminds me of was my first shuttlecraft.

In the winter of 1972 I was at my family's condo in Mammoth with nothing to do (there wasn't much in the way of TV and at that age I didn't _get_ skiing). My brother (a freshmen in high school at the time) had seen that I was bored out of my mind and knew I loved Star Trek (he had made me a model of the Enterprise a year earlier). He had spotted a 2x4 with a 45 degree cut on it in a pile of wood as we were arriving and got a saw from our Dad to cut a 6 inch length off the end. Using a pen he drew a bunch of the details on the piece of wood and an hour later I had a shuttlecraft toy to play with. It was the best trip to Mammoth... *ever!*

It was no surprise to any of us that my brother went on to major in art in college. :thumbsup:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Shaw said:


> ...I was wondering what the old AMT box might have looked like with my models...Of course it'd look better with a finished shuttlecraft (and actual decals and paint), but I was curious to see how it might have looked.


Even unfinished it looks better than what we got in that box. :lol: I hope Round 2's eventually-to-be-upcoming kit looks as good as yours.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well, it shows you there's always something new to learn. I was re-reading 'These are the Voyages Season One' and focused on the making of 'The Galileo Seven', and discovered something I don't recall ever hearing before. AMT not only picked up the cost and build the Shuttlecraft model and the exterior setpiece, they ALSO built the Interior set as well!

This surprises me no end. Given the nature of Hollywood unions I am honestly shocked that the interior set was allowed. This is NOT a case of Roddenberry skirting the rules by having Wah Chang build props but bill as if they were 'off the shelf' items he had. 

Of course the information is incomplete as the making of the Galileo is not the focus of the book.  

It may well be that AMT's custom shop was covered under one or another Union that was acceptable. It may be the unfinished interior was provided, then union people finished it, 'dressed' it and that made it kosher. (speaking of, isn't that the sight and console from 'The Cage' Phaser cannon serving as part of the shuttle control bank?).


It was also interesting to learn that the Shuttlecraft has a steel base with the rest being plywood and fibreglas. Makes sense, gives the 'landing gear' something to hang on to and a floor that nobody is going to step thru.

Shaw, will your shuttle have the support braces on the inside faces of the nacelle supports? They're un-aerodynamic as all heck but clearly there in the miniature.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Steve H said:


> Shaw, will your shuttle have the support braces on the inside faces of the nacelle supports? They're un-aerodynamic as all heck but clearly there in the miniature.


Yeah, they'll be there... though I thought it was odd that they were among the parts missing when the miniature was found. The face plate, engine grill and nacelle cowls were understandable (they were either removable or exposed enough to be knocked off), but the braces were in a pretty shielded location.

They'll be fitted at about the same time I glue the supports in place, but won't be glued in place until after the model is painted. They'll be added at about the same time as the nacelles.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Shaw said:


> Yeah, they'll be there... though I thought it was odd that they were among the parts missing when the miniature was found. The face plate, engine grill and nacelle cowls were understandable (they were either removable or exposed enough to be knocked off), but the braces were in a pretty shielded location.
> 
> They'll be fitted at about the same time I glue the supports in place, but won't be glued in place until after the model is painted. They'll be added at about the same time as the nacelles.


It could be whoever had the miniature felt they were illogical and not really needed (I make the assumption they're there because of structural support issues in the set prop) and just knocked them off.

So, how about checking my brain? There are pictures of the Shuttlecraft in that book that have the appearance of the nacelle domes being lit. Now I'm going crazy trying to remember if they were lit or not in the show! My first reaction was "Oh, that's just an optical illusion due to the angle of the camera" but...argh! 

(again, my take: Given that they had the shuttle traveling at warp it would be reasonable for them to light, and they don't 'spin' because they're an older style warp system, smaller and more compact but not as fast as the 'current, modern' style. Same as a 4 cylinder air cooled motor isn't the same look as a 12 cylinder water cooled fully blown engine.  )


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

They didn't light the nacelles on the model in TOS... but if they had more time I'd bet that they would have.

Most aspects of the first season were worked out over the nearly two years between the first pilot and the beginning of the series... but the shuttlecraft was done in the heat of production. I think they would have liked to have had the domes lit, but I think they wanted the footage of the model more.

Small update...

I've done a little more work on the nacelles...








And here are a few shots of the model before it's last restoration which helps show how close (or far off) I am on some of my details...








... of course the point of the model is to learn from the build.


----------



## PauliusLiekis (Feb 16, 2015)

Looks sweet


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks!



I finally finished up with my decal graphics for this model...


_Click to Enlarge (150 dpi)_​
I'll double check it for errors/omissions in a few days before I send off the EPS version.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Very nice, looking great so far.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Beautiful work. The decals look fantastic!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Decals do look beautiful. Did you want to consider adding 'Galileo II' markings as well?


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks a ton guys! :thumbsup:




Steve H said:


> Did you want to consider adding 'Galileo II' markings as well?


They hadn't added it to the original model (which I don't believe was filmed again after the first season) like they did to the large scale mockup, but if people really like the graphics I might scale them down for the old AMT kit and add in things like the "II" as an option and the missing "-" in the main registry number.

My model is about 11 inches long and I think I recall reading that the original AMT kit was 7 inches, so reduced to about 64% and they should fit okay.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I see you believe in making extra markings on a decal sheet too, just in case.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

John P said:


> I see you believe in making extra markings on a decal sheet too, just in case.


I know I make mistakes, so I keep extras of decals around just in case... and to keep the pressure off while applying them. I may spend more on decals, but less on _Tums_.

:thumbsup:

A little more progress (though not much)...


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

O.M.G.!!!
That is* awsome* Mr.Shaw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-Jim


----------



## edward 2 (Oct 6, 2010)

good use of model rocket tubes


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks guys!



edward 2 said:


> good use of model rocket tubes


Yeah, I should include a small sign with the model saying _"not a flying toy"_.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

I swear, you are so skilled, even your "practice" builds are awesome!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Shaw said:


> Thanks guys!
> 
> 
> Yeah, I should include a small sign with the model saying _"not a flying toy"_.


Oh, come on, you know you could slip a couple of 'C' class model rocket engines in there and light it up...


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Oh, come on, you know you could slip a couple of 'C' class model rocket engines in there and light it up...


I had a cousin who did just that with an Enterprise model back in the 1970's. He put the "C" motors in the engine nacelles, as you can guess, it did not end well.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

BWolfe said:


> I had a cousin who did just that with an Enterprise model back in the 1970's. He put the "C" motors in the engine nacelles, as you can guess, it did not end well.


Oh, sure, but the nacelles of the AMT Enterprise kit, and all of the different iterations of course, are nowhere NEAR the thrustline of the center of gravity. The Shuttlecraft is much closer...


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Here are a few more shots from the rear...


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

Very nice work!


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Agreed!


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

:thumbsup:Fantastic work........you're VERY talented


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks a ton guys!

Quick update...

I think I'm getting pretty close to the painting stage now...








Just a few things left to address.


----------



## seaview62 (Nov 30, 2012)

Loving following your progress. :thumbsup:This is absolutely incredible work!


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

seaview62 said:


> Loving following your progress. :thumbsup:This is absolutely incredible work!


*Bond movie Q voice* 
I concur!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

coming along very nicely! Have you worked on the aft nacelle tips yet?

It really is much more than a 'flying butter dish', isn't it? 

You know what I would wish and love to see? This model (or a cast metal copy) put in a wind tunnel, to see what the airflow around it would be. I suspect it would have a better drag co-efficient than most would think. 

Impossible if not just impractical, but the thought occurs.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks a ton guys! 




Steve H said:


> Have you worked on the aft nacelle tips yet?


Mostly because I'm on nacelles version 3.0, I'm waiting to make sure that these are the final versions to fit them on (the nacelles themselves haven't been glued to the model yet). Also, they are actually stubby little things (compared to other nacelles) and because they'll be painted chrome, I'm holding off on adding them right away.

Progress marches on...


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I'm pretty close to finished with the painting (the chrome/silver elements are going to be the last things done) and I'm pretty much finished with the weathering too (except for the nacelles), so I need to hit the model with a few gloss coats and then onto the decals. Here are some more shots of her... 








Any thoughts on her so far? Does she sorta look like the filming model to you guys?


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

She is a beautiful thing!

One thought is: the curvature of the windows might be a tad much but what do I know (not much).


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks!

It looked curved in the reference photos I have, but because the original face plate was lost it is hard to know for sure. The face plate bows outward a bit, so it effects the look of things (specially compared to other models of the shuttlecraft).



First couple decals applied, but still a long ways to go... here is a quick preview.


_Click to Enlarge_​


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

My precious...


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

She's gorgeous! Great job!


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks guys!


Okay, the first round of decals have been applied... I need to give the model some time before the second round because some of those are going to be placed over other decals.

But while we wait... more pictures!


----------



## Richard38 (Apr 16, 2002)

Shaw,

SPECTACULAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Richard


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks!

This is the last set for a while... I need to pull the nacelles off and work on them this weekend (and make some progress on the display base). For a first try it seems to be turning out okay.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

There are still a few things I'd like to do to this model, but I need to set it aside for a little bit so I'm going to call this done... for now.

_Click images to enlarge_
 
 
 
 ​


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Kind of unbelievable that it's from scratch. 
Wow....


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

Really came out beautifully. 

I learned a few things I didn't know about the shuttle from your build as well!


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks a ton guys!

Here are a few more images (missing from the earlier post because of the 8 image limit)...

_Click images to enlarge_
 
​
And just think, it didn't take me two years to finish this one! :thumbsup:

Thanks again!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Shaw said:


> Thanks a ton guys!
> 
> Here are a few more images (missing from the earlier post because of the 8 image limit)...
> 
> ...


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: 
Oops! I clapped so hard my hands fell off! I'm typing with my feet now.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

I know that your hand-drew your Galileo script but did you manage to find a proper font for this? Some years ago I did a lot of research into finding the right font for a project of mine and never quite got it right. In any case, you did a fantastic job!


----------



## Paper Hollywood (Nov 2, 2011)

Great build and nice graphic work, Shaw. This thread is joy to read through. I like that don't worry about "real" scale and base yours on a studio model. I've seen so many absurd arguments about how realistically scaled models are that are based on special effects creations in movie/TV productions. If the makers of the original production didn't sweat too much over scale, why should we?


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks guys!

Yeah, I figure it is best to replicate (and document) the original work of the artists that brought this stuff to life for us. I understand wanting to reconcile all the elements we saw on screen, but I think there is a place for documenting what was used without making compromises. The thing I liked most about working on the shuttlecraft interior for Starship Exeter was that they straight out said "we want to replicate the original set as seen." And when you realize that the set we made was 30 inches long and didn't have to support actors and the like, that made it feel like we were honoring the original artists from the show (and the fans too).

Eventually I'll take another stab at this... maybe at studio scale. But for a first attempt of a subject I hadn't spent that much time researching prior to this build, I'm pretty happy with the results (and learned a lot at the same time).





Tiberious said:


> I know that your hand-drew your Galileo script but did you manage to find a proper font for this? Some years ago I did a lot of research into finding the right font for a project of mine and never quite got it right.


Well, yeah, all the letters and numbers are hand drawn (tracings of original decal art from the series)... but the script was a little different. I traced a high resolution image of the script from the side of the large scale mockup, but it didn't work exactly as I needed for the miniature, so I altered it a bit (it is more angled than the large scale mockup version).

And that wasn't the only version of the script... I also tried out some versions that were more like Jefferies' version...








... which also looked more like the original decals that came with the AMT kit in 1975.

I've stopped attempting to use fonts because I have to rely on other people for something I could do myself. It is easier to make the artwork myself and not worry about if it is exactly what I wanted... because when I make it I'm sure it is what I wanted.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I finally got around to building a base for the model. Still a little ways to go, but here is how it is looking so far...

 ​


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

What a great display piece. Question though, should the nacelle exhaust nozzles really be chrome?


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks!



Trekkriffic said:


> Question though, should the nacelle exhaust nozzles really be chrome?


Do you mean on the original filming miniature... yes.

Overall, it is a big discrepancy between the studio model and the large scale mock-up. And not only in color, but also in geometry of that part. The rear end caps are short and stubby (and sorta uninteresting) on the studio model compared to the much cooler implementation of the large scale mock-up.

Believe me, there were more than a few times when I considered making nacelles that looked more like the large scale mock-up because it would have made the model look better overall... but like the Phase II Enterprise (where I also had some differing ideas from the actual design) this study model is a tool for doing historical research more than producing the most esthetically pleasing model.

And don't get me wrong, I do like both my Phase II Enterprise and Galileo models. It is just sometimes hard to resist the urge to make changes while building these models. I actually put serious thought into not including the phaser assembly on the Enterprise because it seemed (to me) to clutter the design a bit too much (compared to the TOS design). But I am glad that I followed through on it to see how the final design would have looked.

But yeah, that is one of the areas where I'm sure the future Round 2 model will look much better than mine.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Interesting. Obviously I was comparing your study model to the full scale mockup so they did look a bit stubby in comparison. I trust in your knowledge of this subject of course, so, stubby chrome nacelle nozzles it must be.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I started these a long time ago, but just got around to finishing them... box art if this had been the AMT kit!


_Click to enlarge_


_Click to enlarge_​
And my model on the hangar deck...


_Click to enlarge_​
Nothing really new, but I'm building another one of these for a client (with an interior), so I've been reviewing a lot of my notes from this build.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Awesome blossom!


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

deleted


----------



## alensatemybuick (Sep 27, 2015)

Mr. Shaw, saw you were offering this build for sale, tried contacting you about it but not sure my E-mail or PM went through. Please PM or E-mail me at [email protected] if it is still available. Thanks, Scott

*(ON EDIT $400 and 17 MONTHS LATER : I should have seen that E-mail getting bounced as an omen).*


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Hope this helps::thumbsup:
http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=69953
Jim G.G.


----------



## alensatemybuick (Sep 27, 2015)

-----


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Trekkriffic said:


> Interesting. Obviously I was comparing your study model to the full scale mockup so they did look a bit stubby in comparison. I trust in your knowledge of this subject of course, so, stubby chrome nacelle nozzles it must be.



Gorgeous model! Next to the TOS Enterprise, this baby is very close to my heart. That's why I'm puzzled on the nozzle issue, as well. I don't mean to downplay the beauty of this build, but the perfectionist in me wonders what sources David referenced for those very stubby nozzles. David? All of the photos that I found of both the original "full scale" floor model and the smaller filming model show the nozzles as much less stubby. In fact, the nozzle proportions of both sizes look pretty close to identical, to me...


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

This is a study model, and the whole point of it was to find flaws in my designs and address them. The flaw in the rear nacelle configuration was that the domes didn't extend out far enough, and the cowlings were made proportional to them. I'm in the middle of building a second model (and likely a third) where that issue will be fixed.

But again, the point of this model was to take what I had, build it, hold it up to the original and see where I screwed up.








Do I like those flaws? No. And the same types of flaws in previous study models bug me just as much...


_Click to enlarge_​
Study models are research tools for me. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent looking at side-by-side comparisons of my models with the originals doing a _Where's Waldo_ search for flaws.

Unfortunately sharing my findings often times means sharing my mistakes. The cowlings aren't as short as mine, but they aren't much longer either. And no where near the length of the large scale mock-up's cowlings. When I made them the correct length, they looked off, so this was the compromise I went with.

I'd still like to think that this is a pretty good model for a first try.


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

Shaw said:


> Thanks a ton guys!
> 
> Here are a few more images (missing from the earlier post because of the 8 image limit)...
> 
> ...


Really beautiful work ????


----------



## alensatemybuick (Sep 27, 2015)

.....


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Shaw said:


> I'd still like to think that this is a pretty good model for a first try.


Don't worry about that--it's awesome! Incredible work.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

excellent work David Shaw !


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Fozzie said:


> Don't worry about that--it's awesome! Incredible work.


It's the closest thing yet to the filming miniature that I've ever seen. Really great for your first go Shaw. I mean ... just really good...


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks guys!

To be clear, I'm not unhappy with the model, but as *Proper2* pointed out, it does have it's _short_comings. I do love the model just the same though...

_Click images to enlarge_
 ​
But the goal of the project was to document the original studio model as it appeared in the series, so I'm hoping that I've caught as many of the details as possible. After all, it would be nice if this information could eventually be used to restore the original model to that condition.


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

Shaw, what paint/colors did you use on the main hull and the nacelles?

What did you use for the chrome on the nacelles? Is that paint?


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

The main hull color is insignia white (Tamiya AS-20) with the underside and nacelles Luftwaffe light blue (Tamiya AS-5). Luftwaffe light blue is the base color I used for both the Enterprise and Columbia models (along with elements on those models done with light ghost gray AS-26, light gray AS-18 and medium sea gray AS-11).

The rear nacelles were painted chrome, but the effect on the forward nacelles is done with a chrome graphic tape. The ends of the tape are anchored with a touch of CA. I had tried graphic tape before, but with primary colors (for stripes), this was my first try with any of the metallic colors.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Shaw said:


> Thanks guys! To be clear, I'm not unhappy with the model, but as *Proper2* pointed out, it does have it's _short_comings.


Well perhaps the balls are just suffering from "shrinkage" and tucked themselves up into the nacelles for warmth. It is awfully cold in space after all...


----------



## alensatemybuick (Sep 27, 2015)

*ON EDIT: Nothing nice to say.*


----------

