# Revell Germany Klingon Battlecruiser kit and references



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Since the existing thread on the Revell Germany kits seems hopelessly lost and off-topic, I thought it would be nice to have a thread or two that will actually discuss the soon-to-be-released kits and provide references in order to successfully build them.

The Revell Klingon Battlecruiser kit appears to bear a strong resemblance to the Greg Jein-built model from _DS9'_s _Trials and Tribbleations_, with perhaps a bit of the _Phase II _Klingon ship's details thrown in. I have included some rare screen shots of the _DS9 _and _Phase II _models for comparison to the recent test-shot photos of the model kit.

To begin with, it appears that (at least) the top surfaces of the model have engraved detail similar to that of the DS9 model, along with similar front windows.



























Many of the "head" details look similar, with the possible exception of the dome structure behind the bridge, which appears slightly taller with windows that resemble the _Phase II_ version pictured here:










As you can see, except for the shape of the bridge, there is more than a passing resemblance. Note that the Phase II ship sports D7 engine nacelles, only mounted upside-down.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

On to the rear section of the ship - the impulse deck and "wing" panels.














































The hull color appears to be an overall gray-green, similar to the base color of the K't'inga from STTMP. The engine pylon vents and detail colors appear to be gold and silver - the inverse of the series ship, which are silver and gold. The grilles on either side of the impulse deck look to be a rust color, along with the grilles on the rear sides of each nacelle, as well as the inset stripe around the perimeter of the bridge.

The main visible difference looks to be the warp field generators on the engine nacelles. On the _DS9_ model, there is a single, lit green strip. While on the Revell kit, there are two sets of two clear strips.

I am really looking forward to the release of this kit. Probably even more so than their _Enterprise_ kit. It looks to be easily alterable to model either the _DS9_ or _Phase II_ ships. So, I plan on doing both.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Excellent analysis! :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Looks good to me, I always loved this design. The only thing that jumps out to me as, what some would consider "off", is the height of the bridge dome. I think it looks good that way to me, mostly because I liked the upgrade design for ST:TMP!


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

RSN said:


> Looks good to me, I always loved this design. The only thing that jumps out to me as, what some would consider "off", is the height of the bridge dome. I think it looks good that way to me, mostly because I liked the upgrade design for ST:TMP!


I love this design as well. :thumbsup: I remember after seeing STTMP, taking my older brothers TOS Klingon kit and scribing (unsuccessfully) similar platting lines onto the hull.


----------



## Vindi (Mar 20, 2009)

Trek Ace said:


> Since the existing thread on the Revell Germany kits seems hopelessly lost and off-topic, I thought it would be nice to have a thread or two that will actually discuss the soon-to-be-released kits and provide references in order to successfully build them.
> 
> The Revell Klingon Battlecruiser kit appears to bear a strong resemblance to the Greg Jein-built model from _DS9'_s _Trials and Tribbleations_, with perhaps a bit of the _Phase II _Klingon ship's details thrown in. I have included some rare screen shots of the _DS9 _and _Phase II _models for comparison to the recent test-shot photos of the model kit.
> 
> ...


On the bridge deck it looks like the small oblong dome is further back on the deck than in the screen shot. Also, it looks like the tall dome is round and further aft on the model, but oblong and a bit more forward on the screen shot


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Thanks for posting those Trek Ace. I can't tell from those photos but does the DS9 ship and Phase II have windows on the domed bridge? They both look like they don't (unlike the Revell kit).


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

The windows that are on the vertical dome that is above and behind the bridge of this kit are not on the filming model from TOS.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

irishtrek said:


> The windows that are on the vertical dome that is above and behind the bridge of this kit are not on the filming model from TOS.




I know there aren't windows on the vertical dome on the OS filming model but I was talking about the DS9 and Phase II versions. I can't see any windows on that part in other photos I've seen of the Phase II model.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

I like the looks of this kit.... might round that dome more and lower it a hair, but all doable tasks. Looks like it could pass for the first refit from D7 towards a K'Tinga prototype.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Good idea on recreating a thread on this kit. Having recently completed the new AMT D7 and beating myself up on the details, doing this as an alternative/later version would be fun. As Larva said, a mid-point between the D7 and K'tinga class (refit or not) is the best description of this "re-imagined" ship. Not definitive, but worth having and doing a build of if you can get your hands on it.

Tib


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

irishtrek said:


> The windows that are on the vertical dome that is above and behind the bridge of this kit are not on the filming model from TOS.


that's sort of the whole point... what they're modeling is a UNIQUE blend of TOS, DS9, Phase2, and TMP details.

I LIKE it. Not as a replacement for the ship seen in TOS, mind you, but as a later revision.

The ship in TOS was a D7-A class battlecruiser. The ship in TMP was a D7-M class battlecruiser, and the ship in TUC was a D7-S class battlecruiser. (Sources are primarily fannish in nature, mind you, but are not unique to me.)

So... the ship seen in the "Phase 2" model (which was retrofitted into the TMP ship later, and later retrofitted again into the TUC ship) might be a D7-K, for example. The ship seen in DS9's "Trials and Tribble-ations" might be a D7-F, for example. And this, I'll likely call a D7-J class battlecruiser.

Your mileage may vary, of course, but I think we can all agree that this is clearly intended to be an intermediate step between the TOS model and the TMP model.

As far as the Enterprise model that Revell is producing, I have a much harder time justifying the shape errors in that kit, personally. But for the Klingon... it's easy to accept this as a different ship, isn't it?


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

The Revell Enterprise will make a nice NCC 1700 Constitution or similarly refitted early heavy cruiser class starship circa 2257. Add spikes to the nacelle domes and greeblize the deflector housing a tad and you'll have a nice transitional testbed Conny class.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

What is the deal with leaving the two big panels on the back of the "impulse deck" open? Easy to fix (although not if you're going to recreate the shape seen on the original AMT model) but just a weird approach--there are no clear pieces or other parts to fill this area in? I can't remember a mass produced kit that just leaves open holes where you can look inside the model...


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

jbond said:


> What is the deal with leaving the two big panels on the back of the "impulse deck" open? Easy to fix (although not if you're going to recreate the shape seen on the original AMT model) but just a weird approach--there are no clear pieces or other parts to fill this area in? I can't remember a mass produced kit that just leaves open holes where you can look inside the model...




I was thinking that too.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

jbond said:


> What is the deal with leaving the two big panels on the back of the "impulse deck" open? Easy to fix (although not if you're going to recreate the shape seen on the original AMT model) but just a weird approach--there are no clear pieces or other parts to fill this area in? I can't remember a mass produced kit that just leaves open holes where you can look inside the model...


It's a test shot. There are several spots on either kit where there seem to be missing components. I wouldn't worry TOO much...


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

The upper one is (total guess) the shuttle bay. That's been in fan plans for ages, and there's the option to model it this way with the PL 1k kit.

I may be looking at it wrong and seeing something incorrectly, but it looks like the lower one has a clear green piece, intimating that it's the impulse engine.


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

Still.... interesting to see if it will be sold on this side of the pond.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

OK, I'm interested because I always want to learn.

Was there an actual finished Klingon ship for the Phase II project? I had NEVER heard, seen or read that. I know Brick Price had the Enterprise in a 'semi-finalized' state which was looked at and rejected for TMP but I had no idea that a Klingon ship had gotten built.

And if I read what CL said correctly, the (assumed Brick Price built) Klingon ship was kept and just detailed more for TMP?

Huh. 

Anyway, I discount the 'retcon' from DS9 because I'm a fanboy and that's my right.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

There are two clear parts there. They seem to have a slight yellowish tint. Same as the bridge windows, etc.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

There WAS a finished Phase II Klingon ship--or at the very least a totally different-looking early version of the K'tinga. I've seen some fascinating photographs of it--VERY low-relief detail, basic gray paint job and small markings. That's why I'm interested in this model--it's a great basis for a take on that subject (or the "Tribble-ations" ship).


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

> The ship in TMP was a D7-M class battlecruiser, and the ship in TUC was a D7-S class battlecruiser. (Sources are primarily fannish in nature, mind you, but are not unique to me.)
> So... the ship seen in the "Phase 2" model (which was retrofitted into the TMP ship later,


Where do you get that from????? The klingon ships in TMP and TUC are both what is known as K'Tinga. As for the Phase II I've never seen a pic or any kind drawing of it let alone any printed info on the ship.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

You just need to look in the right place. 

http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=1722


There are other photos of the _Phase II_ model out there as well. This one from the top of the thread, is from American Cinematographer magazine:










As CL Brown and others have correctly stated, the Klingon K'T'inga from _STTMP_ and _Kronos One _from _STTUC _were embellishments of this same four-foot model that started out as a modified D7 for _Phase II_. The model makers replaced the upside-down _Phase II_ D7 nacelles with the larger, more detailed ones for the film.

There was also another, smaller prototype Phase II Klingon model, taken directly from a mold of the Original Series 28.5" D7 model. Photos of it are often mistaken for those of the screen-used D7 or the AMT tooling model.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

My apologies for not being clear enough, I was reffering to the comment CLBrown made stating the there are different models of the D-7 like D-7M or a D-7S and so forth.............


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

irishtrek said:


> My apologies for not being clear enough, I was reffering to the comment CLBrown made stating the there are different models of the D-7 like D-7M or a D-7S and so forth.............


As I said, that's "fanon" information, not anything official from Paramount. I can't recall the first time I saw this stuff, but the "D-7A" definition for the TOS ship has been around since the early 1970s (the markings on the wing say that, in TOS "Klingonese", according to the fan-created "Klingon font" created more than thirty years, for example).

I can't recall the first time I saw the term "D-7M" for the Klingon from TMP, but I'm sure it was not long after TMP came out, as in "within a few months." (It might even have been in Roddenberry's novelization?)

The D-7S definition, I'm pretty sure, came from FASA's materials, however (I know that the other stuff predated FASA's Trek license.)

So, as I said, this info isn't "official" but is widely known and acknowledge in "fanon" terms.

Nobody has to accept this, obviously, but I hold to it. The version we saw in TOS was the D-7A, and all the variations seen later (up to DS9) are later subclasses of the D-7 class.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> As I said, that's "fanon" information, not anything official from Paramount. I can't recall the first time I saw this stuff, but the "D-7A" definition for the TOS ship has been around since the early 1970s (the markings on the wing say that, in TOS "Klingonese", according to the fan-created "Klingon font" created more than thirty years, for example).
> 
> I can't recall the first time I saw the term "D-7M" for the Klingon from TMP, but I'm sure it was not long after TMP came out, as in "within a few months." (It might even have been in Roddenberry's novelization?)
> 
> ...


Sorry, with nothing better to do today, (But cause trouble! ), I just cracked open my copy of ST:TMP. Roddenberry states that the Kilingon ships are "...their new K't'inga-class heavy cruisers...". So, no bloody A, B, C or D, D-7 reference. (Ain't I a stinker!):thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

And I had never seen anything with D-7M before this either.

I make the assumption that D-7M was a fannish way to distinguish the movie Klingon ship from the TV ship (m for movie, see?) that maybe Sternbach or Okuda grabbed hold of and worked into their stuff. Wouldn't be at all shocked if it started with Geoff Mandel


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

does anybody know if these kits are available now. They were scheduled for October 2011


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Well, "Memory Beta" is a popular website that deals with "non-canon" Trek topics. Here's a pertinent page from there:

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/D7_class

or an alternative site:

http://lcarsmemoryalpha.com/wiki/index.php?title=D7_class

Again, this is not official, canon material, but it's widely accepted.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Guy Schlicter said:


> does anybody know if these kits are available now. They were scheduled for October 2011


The AMT D-7 is available in a collectors tin and a regular box edition should be out soon, atleast that's what I read recently but I don't recall where exactly. As for the AMT K'Tinga R2 aint reissued it yet.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Guy Schlicter said:


> does anybody know if these kits are available now. They were scheduled for October 2011


http://www.wonderlandmodels.com/products/revell-1600-star-trek-uss-enterprise-ncc-1701/
-Jim


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

JGG1701 said:


> http://www.wonderlandmodels.com/products/revell-1600-star-trek-uss-enterprise-ncc-1701/
> -Jim


Hi Jim. Thanks, Guy.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'm really starting to want this kit, if only to do a side-by-side with an AMT 18" version.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Guy Schlicter said:


> Hi Jim. Thanks, Guy.


Happy to help.
-Jim


----------



## iamweasel (Aug 14, 2000)

CLBrown said:


> I wouldn't worry TOO much...


This is a Trek kit, there shall be more worry here then the average person had at the height of the cold war of being nuked.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Another shot showing the closest thing to a profile of the Jein Klingon D7. If you squint, you can see it:










I hope to have a set of these new Revell kits within the coming month. I look forward to seeing them first-hand.


----------



## JediPuju (Oct 12, 2009)

Hi all - I snapped these at Telford today at the Revell stand. I think they were test shots however as the E had no grids and the D7 didnt have the surface detail you have seen in other shots. Ill post them anyway for all to see .


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Very , very nice! :thumbsup:
Wish that insignia stand was right though. 
Thanks for posting.............. when are these due out again?
-Jim


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Those look like the resin mock ups.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

The D7 DOES have the surface detailing... you can see it pretty clearly on the cobra head "command deck" structure's top.

But the 1701 lacks the canyon-like grooves. I'm hoping that this is a sign that they've removed them. With that done, all they need to do is fix the sensor/deflector base and this will be a pretty nice kit.

By the way... is it just me, or is the B/C deck superstructure's shape also more accurate now?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Hard to tell. Lighting, angle, that can hide many sins. 

There's still something about the Engineering hull that looks off. To me, it looks like it's just a tube instead of the subtle shape I can't easily describe. 

Closest I can come is it seems 'flat' when the perception I have it's 'round' and I have no idea if that makes any sense. Maybe it's those real portholes instead of the usual decals.


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

Guy Schlicter said:


> Hi Jim. Thanks, Guy.


Dont get them there . My wife ordered and cancelled them for me . The want $80 US for both kits and an additional $80 to ship to the US. They dont tell you that until after you place an order. italso could take a month to receive. I just got the Blade Runner Spinner from Japan. I ordered on Thursday It cost $20 to ship. It is already in New York.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

jaws62666 said:


> Dont get them there . My wife ordered and cancelled them for me . The want $80 US for both kits and an additional $80 to ship to the US. They dont tell you that until after you place an order. italso could take a month to receive. I just got the Blade Runner Spinner from Japan. I ordered on Thursday It cost $20 to ship. It is already in New York.


Thanks for letting me know. I asked my sister to get them for me for Christmas but I don't want her spending all types of money to get it from that store. I want them but not at that high price.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> Hard to tell. Lighting, angle, that can hide many sins.
> 
> There's still something about the Engineering hull that looks off. To me, it looks like it's just a tube instead of the subtle shape I can't easily describe.
> 
> Closest I can come is it seems 'flat' when the perception I have it's 'round' and I have no idea if that makes any sense. Maybe it's those real portholes instead of the usual decals.


Well, the main issue is the front end of the secondary hull. They show it as having a sudden, sharp "bevel" down to what is essentially a circular "ring of tubes" behind the dish.

I've spent a lot of time researching the shape of the classic ship over the past couple of years, working things into a CAD model of the ship. (I've made a couple of small deviations from what was seen on-screen, such as fixing the little tube at the aft of the bridge to "fit" a lift tube better, and so forth, but for the most part have been trying to replicate the images seen on-screen on a 1966 TV set while still adding additional "realism" to the model.

SO, I'm pretty comfortable that I've got the secondary hull shape "perfect" (or as nearly so as is possible without a laser-scan of the physical 11' miniature).

Check out this image... which shows the shape I've developed... and compare it to the secondary hull in this kit. The overall shape is the same, but the front end... the "bevel" leading down to the dish mount, and the dish mount itself... is all wrong.



If the kit ships like this, an after-market correction will undoubtedly be on the market within weeks to fix it. But it shouldn't be necessary.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Guy Schlicter said:


> Thanks for letting me know. I asked my sister to get them for me for Christmas but I don't want her spending all types of money to get it from that store. I want them but not at that high price.


Sorry bout that. I had no idea. 
-Jim


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

JGG1701 said:


> Sorry bout that. I had no idea.
> -Jim


No Problem.


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

JGG1701 said:


> Sorry bout that. I had no idea.
> -Jim


I found a guy on ebay who has the enterprise and is getting the klingon ship on wed. He will ship them both together and total cost of kits and shipping will be like $90 . go to ebay and search for revell 04880 , that is the enterprise kit # . You will see three items for it. Check with that guy.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The underside of the saucer seems to be borrowing a bit from the three-footer...


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

It's not just the shape of the housing behind the deflector dish that don't look right, it's also the top of the hull behind the pylons, it looks like it has a hunch back right there and another part of the problem I think is the 'cradle' the hull sits in.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

jaws62666 said:


> I found a guy on ebay who has the enterprise and is getting the klingon ship on wed. He will ship them both together and total cost of kits and shipping will be like $90 . go to ebay and search for revell 04880 , that is the enterprise kit # . You will see three items for it. Check with that guy.


Thanks Very Much


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

CLBrown said:


> The D7 DOES have the surface detailing... you can see it pretty clearly on the cobra head "command deck" structure's top.
> 
> But the 1701 lacks the canyon-like grooves. I'm hoping that this is a sign that they've removed them. With that done, all they need to do is fix the sensor/deflector base and this will be a pretty nice kit.
> 
> By the way... is it just me, or is the B/C deck superstructure's shape also more accurate now?




I doubt they've removed the lines. As I said those are most probably the resin mock ups that were shown a while back as they look exactly like them and the tooling's already been done. We've already seen the parts in plastic.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> Well, the main issue is the front end of the secondary hull. They show it as having a sudden, sharp "bevel" down to what is essentially a circular "ring of tubes" behind the dish.
> 
> I've spent a lot of time researching the shape of the classic ship over the past couple of years, working things into a CAD model of the ship. (I've made a couple of small deviations from what was seen on-screen, such as fixing the little tube at the aft of the bridge to "fit" a lift tube better, and so forth, but for the most part have been trying to replicate the images seen on-screen on a 1966 TV set while still adding additional "realism" to the model.
> 
> ...


I do a poor job of explaining, so I have to go with more 'feeling' based descriptions in these cases. Saying that, the pic of your CG model seems right to me, it has the subtle curves and bulging and tapering that catches my eye.

I think, on the Revell kit, simply cutting down that 'sensor dish support ring', that tube that pokes out of the front of the hull, that would help quite a bit. I think that's what my senses are trying to tell me, the excessive length of that part throws the balance off. But then the hull would still need to be 'bulged' some..or...no, the hull needs to be extended some, forward of the dorsal! THAT'S what's throwing me off! cripes!

Good thing this sucker is way more expensive than it should be (that's relative of course but realistically, in a rational world that should be like $20 USD) and hard to obtain to boot. Makes it easier to not buy it.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> I do a poor job of explaining, so I have to go with more 'feeling' based descriptions in these cases. Saying that, the pic of your CG model seems right to me, it has the subtle curves and bulging and tapering that catches my eye.


Well, it's less a matter of length than it is of diameter. The kit "ring of cylinders" (I call this the "gravitational resonator" but your mileage may vary) has an outside diameter which is way, way too small. The length is slightly too long as well, but that's only about 3% to 5% too long, pretty much trivial compared to the ~15% error in the "root diameter" of that outer ring. Also, note the taper of my outer ring (the others are cylindrical, but the outer one is significantly tapered). The Revel kit in the image shown here has very little taper. (The images we saw earlier showed NO taper whatsoever... and the taper present here seems to be "planted on" after the fact.

*****
Sungod,

Re: this being the "early prototype" rather than the "final kit parts," I'm sorry, but I'm far from convinced of that. I seen absolutely no indication of this claim whatsoever. Making an assumption and then stating it as fact isn't really a valid discussion technique.

Do you have any evidence to produce to support the claim that these are early, SLA-based prototypes?

I haven't seen any.

On the other hand, the HUGE, GAPING CHASMS of "gridlines" on the first set of test shots we saw on the 1701 were the primary source of criticism re: this kit, weren't they?

Well, to fix those would be trivial. You could remove them in an entirely "steel safe" manner (meaning you remove metal from the tool, rather than needing to add metal TO the tool, which is far more difficult and expensive).

On the other hand, someone might have simply puttied them in.

I DO see this, and I see the B/C deck "teardrop" which both seem more like the production ship. And I see a SLIGHT taper in the "ring of tubes" which was not present at all in the earlier images we were shown.

I find it difficult to believe that they'd have gone from "more accurate" to "less accurate" over time. Don't you?


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

CLBrown said:


> Well, it's less a matter of length than it is of diameter. The kit "ring of cylinders" (I call this the "gravitational resonator" but your mileage may vary) has an outside diameter which is way, way too small. The length is slightly too long as well, but that's only about 3% to 5% too long, pretty much trivial compared to the ~15% error in the "root diameter" of that outer ring. Also, note the taper of my outer ring (the others are cylindrical, but the outer one is significantly tapered). The Revel kit in the image shown here has very little taper. (The images we saw earlier showed NO taper whatsoever... and the taper present here seems to be "planted on" after the fact.
> 
> *****
> Sungod,
> ...




CL...we've already seen the kit parts and they had the grid lines (even though they* are *a bit wide...some of us didn't mind them). Those look exactly like the mock ups that were shown before they added the grid lines. If I can find a photo I'll post them.

For a start the 2 lights on top of the Klingon ships bridge are in clear plastic.....whereas those aren't. There was also an aztec pattern on the Klingon ships main body which aren't in that photo.


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

Guy Schlicter said:


> Thanks Very Much


both ships are in stock It cost me $100 total shipped for both kits


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

jaws62666 said:


> both ships are in stock It cost me $100 total shipped for both kits


*OUCH!!!*
-Jim


----------



## JediPuju (Oct 12, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> The D7 DOES have the surface detailing... you can see it pretty clearly on the cobra head "command deck" structure's top.


Sorry I should have explained myself a little better - yes the command deck had surface detail , but on the rear fuselage there was nothing. I don't think these are representative of the actual kit but I'm sure we will know pretty soon. 

I picked up the promo leaflet and all the pics of the kit in that show the exaggerated gridlines on the E btw. 

I should have taken more pictures for you all :/ sorry bout that guys! 

PS as an aside and slightly OT - if you were worried about revell's commitment to accuracy in SF Kits, let me tell you this:

The page showing the TIE Fighter and Landspeeder reads:

"From Repulsor Drive to Hyperdrive"

then

"....The TIE fighter with hyperdrive was used by the empire .... "

tsk tsk Revell.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

It amazes me that the market demographic these kits were targeted for-kids won't be able to afford the high prices asked, and the adult demographic who were turned off by the poor and questionable detail will shy away from them for the same reasons. Revell really missed the mark on this project. There is no way I would pay this kind of price for something so poorly concieved.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Ductapeforever said:


> It amazes me that the market demographic these kits were targeted for-kids won't be able to afford the high prices asked, and the adult demographic who were turned off by the poor and questionable detail will shy away from them for the same reasons. Revell really missed the mark on this project. There is no way I would pay this kind of price for something so poorly concieved.


You hit the nail on the head. The price of the Enterprise, by the seller on ebay mentioned in other posts, is $37.91 plus $14.28 shipping for a total of $52.19. That's way too much, especially for a kit that has as many inaccuracies as this one has. Think I'll pass!


----------



## John F (May 31, 2001)

jaws62666 said:


> I found a guy on ebay who has the enterprise and is getting the klingon ship on wed. He will ship them both together and total cost of kits and shipping will be like $90 . go to ebay and search for revell 04880 , that is the enterprise kit # . You will see three items for it. Check with that guy.


 
Thanks for the heads up, just ordered both kits, $100.00 including shipping.

John


----------



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

So, 

picks of the finished kit?

How is the front torpedo tube and or disruptor (depending on what generation portrayl of the ship you are talking about) made?

Is it clear or have clear parts?


I'm looking at an online pic at: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234915554-klingon-d7-battle-cruiser/

and it appears that it might be solid grey part #18,

with a spot for a clear piece to insert into it.


----------



## barrydancer (Aug 28, 2009)

Now that's a great looking kit. Make it in a K'tinga and I'll import one.


----------



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

If I get one I'll probably putty out the engraved lines on the back and command module.

Might have to do something with the bridge part that's behind the "Lima Bean."

But other then that it doesn't look like too bad a kit to me.

I wish Round2 had gone with window inserts in the style of the decals on their recent 1/650th Klingon upgrade.

Who knows? If they decide to get a few more bucks out of people who want to light her, the might yet do another version.

Maybe even put light inserts on their 1/650th Enterprise that closely match the production version?

Or maybe scale down the 1/350th TOS E kit to 1/650th?


----------



## Mars - 1 (Dec 6, 2002)

I'm a little late to the party on this one, but I've finally gotten this kit. while there are alot of areas that are questionable, it IS a different D-7 to add to the collection. I mean, how many times do I really need to build one of the same four ships? (so far, 4 or 5 of each, and that's not counting the smaller scales). This kit does scream "light me" but my lighting skills stopped developing at the stick in some mini Christmas lights stage.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

I can't find this anywhere. 

Who sells them?


----------



## Mars - 1 (Dec 6, 2002)

I broke down and went to evilbay. A little pricey, but no worse than a resin kit.


----------



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

Jodet said:


> I can't find this anywhere.
> 
> Who sells them?



I bought a 1/600 Revell TOS E from this seller in Great Britian:

http://stores.ebay.com/Model-Hobbie...l&submit=Search&LH_TitleDesc=1&_sid=121240575

He provided me with a Royal Mail tracking number which also worked
on USPS.com once it landed here in the states.

I live in New Orleans, LA.

I just checked the package and it arrived at my local post office today, will either be delivered to my house today or Monday.

I bought it on the 18th of November and he shipped on the 19th.

So it takes that seller about 12(if it arrives today) to 16 days to ship to a residence here in the US.

Given prices elsewhere his are reasonable and he answers emails fairly promptly during business days/hours.

Don't forget GB is at least 6 hours ahead of US time, 7 or more if you are in the Central Time Zone or further West.

Let him know you heard about him on Hobbytalk, maybe if enough people order from him in the future he might consider giving members a discount, just a guess but it can't hurt to ask.

I paid 48.14 shipping included in US dollars for my 1/600 TOS E. The 1/600 Revell Klingon TOS Battlecruiser currently costs $30.60 US Dollars, plus $7.11 US shipping. About $37.71 total for the Klingon,
given what the exchange rates are at the moment.


----------



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

My 1/600th Revell Germany TOS E arrived safely from the above vendor
yesterday! About 12 days total. Not really long at all if any of you remember
buying Trek models from comic ads the Johnson Company used to run in
so many of the comics back in the day. When the said "please allow 6 to 8
weeks for delivery," they meant it! 

I remember waiting for the mailman for weeks, then by the time they arrived
I had usually forgotten I ordered them! 

Those were the days.


----------

