# Best (most accurate) TOS Enterprise Plans



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

Hey folks! Are the Alan Sinclair Plans of the TOS Enterprise about the most accurate out there? I really like they way he has already cross sectioned most of the components.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I strongly advise against using a single source. Yes, the Sinclair plans are great, but so are the Casimiro plans. The best thing to do is to start by gathering as many photos of the Enterprise as possible, and comparing them with these two sets of plans to decide what on each model works the best.

I did a very quick study on this a number of months ago... you can find my conclusions here.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

And don't forget the decal placement diagrams in the PL kit.


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

Thanks, I had never heard of the Casimiro plans. Are they available online for download? And thanks for the link to your research Shaw. I can see the subtle differences and understand the recommendations. Columbia, another good idea! Thanks. I do have the PL decal placement diagrams.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Here they are...

Charles Casimiro Design Blueprints


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

Thank you Capt April!


----------



## edwhitefire (Jan 23, 2004)

Actually, I think Phil Broads plans are the most accurate arround, but I don't think he has posted them yet. But WHEN HE DOES, they will be the most accurate around!


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

edwhitefire said:


> Actually, I think Phil Broads plans are the most accurate arround, but I don't think he has posted them yet. But WHEN HE DOES, they will be the most accurate around!


This from the man with very impressive Ent D blueprints! High praise indeed.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Until then, I suppose one could do a cut-and-paste wtih the Sinclair and Casimiro drawings, putting together the features each one got right, or at least closer.

And, of course, there's always Gary Kerr's highly classified drawings.

What the _heck_ happened to all our spies at Paramount?


*EDITED:* _I already asked you via PM at least once to watch the language, CRA - and that was earlier today. One more violation and you'll get a 10 day Time Out. *Griff*_


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Until then, I suppose one could do a cut-and-paste wtih the Sinclair and Casimiro drawings, putting together the features each one got right, or at least closer.
> 
> And, of course, there's always Gary Kerr's highly classified drawings.
> 
> ...


Just to make sure you get the message.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

For the record, I have yet to use any words not currently allowed in G rated movies.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

For the record, I appreciate the language policy. My 8-year-old likes to read hobbytalk, and I'm happy to let him. In contrast, when he's reading over my shoulder I have to avoid trekbbs, for example.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Captain April said:


> For the record, I have yet to use any words not currently allowed in G rated movies.


I guess we don't watch the same G-Rated movies, as I don't remember hearing the more vulgar forms of darn and heck used in such. Regardless, you've been warned in the past and also as recently as in PM yesterday before you did it again. You've got valuable input that I appreciate, but I won't hesitate to give you a Ten Day BAN. If Hank were to catch it, you'd get a Perma-BAN....

So, end of this off-topic portion of the thread.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Ed, thanks for the endorsement of my plans project. I would like to say one thing concerning "accuracy" however, there is really no such thing when it comes to the TOS "Enterprise".

Why do I say that?

Each "Enterprise" is different from the next, that is why. Even the original plans, which I would usually take as the "ultimate" source, do not show all the details and there is no one sheet that shows the complete final version. Instead, there is a sheet showing the initial design, then there are revision sheets showing how a few details changed and then there are the actual prints used by the builders which contain further changes, sketched right on the face of the print.

Then there are the models themselves, each one different from the other. A further muddying of the water comes in the form of defects in the models, particularly the 11-footer. One warp nacelle is shorter than the other, the saucer is oblong shaped instead of circular and the underside sags, causing the three concentric grooves (and the rows of windows) to sit at an angle, rather than on a horizontal plane. Add to that things like "rigging" errors (removable elements not mounted correctly) such as the sagging warp nacelle and you are left with no completely "accurate" source.

Just what does this ship actually look like? Is an "accurate" plan of the ship one which includes all the defects of the 11-footer or would that just be a plan of a model? Or does an "accurate" plan correct the errors in symmetry and if so, which "side" is the correct one?

These sorts of questions are legion and each chain of decisions leads to a different final answer.

In the final analysis no "accurate" plan is possible, only one which follows certain criteria and ignores others. So find a set of plans that looks right to you and go with it, no one can really say that one plan is right and another is wrong. Certain basic details must be right but only in the most general terms, beyond a certain level of detail, the various sources begin to disagree and accuracy becomes a choice of which source or details one likes best. My plans will be no different.

I have used the "photo match" process mentioned earlier (comparing a 3D CG model to photos) and have achieved a high level of agreement with shots of the 11-footer (my plans are based on that version) so they will be about as close as anyones to being "correct".

Phil


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Based on my research, I'd rank the publicly available plans in this order:

More Accurate
--------
Polar Lights Decal Guide
Alan Sinclair
Charles Casmiro
Various other plans not even in the same league with above three.
--------
Less Accurate

Of course, the gold standard would still be the Gary Kerr plans, which were made from direct measurements of the model.

Of the publicly available ones, the PL plans are far and away the most accurate. The main drawback is that they are so small. Follow them for the size, placement and proportion of all major components. Pay special heed to the impulse engine housing; none of the others get this feature right. On another point, it seems to me the window placements may be a little off.

Consult Sinclair for the proper bridge profile.

Consult Casmiro for his excellent closeups of various details.

Casmiro's undercut is closer in spirit to the model than Sinclair's, and you have to follow one of them since this detail is not visible in the PL plan, but be sure to follow PL for the size and shape of the hull itself.

Keep reference photos handy.

Finally, I have little doubt that Phil Broad's plans will rank high on this list when he releases them...

M.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Thanks Mark. You will be happy to know that I have taken some of your recommendations to heart in recent revisions. 

Phil


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Phil, its interesting that you mention all the defects in the physical model, as they do, undoubtedly play a part, however small, in coloring our perception of any replica looking "right". 

I had hoped that someday an "accurate" set of plans (and that is an odder and odder term the more one gets to know the Enterprise) would inlude at least one sheet outlining those defects. As well as one showing a geometrically corrected version (had the model been contructed more recently).

I just think that knowing those little minutiae are all part of the fun of truly understanding the model. :thumbsup:


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Well, my drawings will be geometrically true (symmetric, parallel, square, circular, etc.) but when it comes to things like the Warp Nacelles, which one is "correct", the long one or the short one? What is the intended diameter of the model Primary Hull, 59.25 inches or 60? Because there can be no correct answer to these types of questions, neither can there be a correct drawing. It is ultimately a matter of opinion. We can get really close but, just as in the old experiment used by math teachers where the members of the class are lined up along one wall then repeatedly told to move "half the remaining distance" to the opposite wall (thus demonstrating that no matter how many times one does it, you never reach the opposite wall), we will never reach the perfect drawing.

I will be including a drawing that shows details of the 11 foot filming model as built but it will not include most of the defects because I lack the specific information for that level of detail. Gary Kerr would be in a position to map out the various defects of the model. I know about the defects and some are visible in various photographs but I don't have the kinds of measurements required to illustrate them in plan views.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Not even Gary Kerr could provide solid numbers on the saucer, because the size of the bleeping thing prevented any accurate measurements. Best he could come up with is an average (and since he's been seen posting in these parts, he's bound to show up and give us the skinny himself).


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Not even Gary Kerr could provide solid numbers on the saucer, because the size of the bleeping thing prevented any accurate measurements. Best he could come up with is an average (and since he's been seen posting in these parts, he's bound to show up and give us the skinny himself).


Okay, here's the skinny:

With the help of two friends, I measured the diameter of the saucer while the studio model was at the NASM's Garber Facility. Our time with the model was limited, and there were many measurements to make, so I decided to make two measurements of the saucer's diameter: one lengthwise and one of the width. One friend held a plastic drafting triangle at the end of a radial grid line on one side of the saucer, while the other friend held a triangle on the opposite side of the saucer. I used a tape measure to measure the diameter of the saucer, and the right-angle triangles allowed me to measure the distance directly, over the top of the bridge in the center of the saucer.

Imagine you're looking down on the saucer, with the bow at the 12:00 position. For the width, we measured from the radial grid below the port nav light to the opposite grid, above the stbd nav light. For the length, we measured from the grid on the port side of the impulse deck to the first grid to the right of the bow. The length measurement was 59-1/4", while the width measurement was 59-13/32". 

When I first drew my plans, I decided to use the 59-1/4" length measurement, since people were used to seeing the entire ship in profile on the original series. We weren't certain whether the radial grids were exactly opposite one another, but we didn't have time to plot the location of every individual grid. When we were collaborating years later, Petri Blomqvist compared his Lightwave wireframe to some hi-res photos of the 11-footer and derived a best-fit diameter of 59.3". This gave me confidence in using the 59.25" figure.

Is the "correct" diameter of the saucer 59-1/4" or 59-13/32"? We're talking about a difference of just over 1/8" on a 5-foot saucer, so I just don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. Well, maybe just a little.

Gary


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

Well, thanks for all the tips and interesting discussion from everyone.I have really received a lot of good advice here. My goal here is to produce a physical model of course. I already have Sinclair's prints in DWG format and want to produce a model around the same scale as the DeBoers refit. IIRC it is 1/260th. 
I have built a couple of the PL kits at 1/1000 and love the work that Tom Sasser did in creating the master.
Does anyone have a little input as to where (I am supposing somewhere like KINKOS) that I can have the CAD files scaled to 1/260 and printed out on a plotter?
I plan on purchasing some of the 6 pound polyfoam and pouring it into forming templates, then sculpting/sanding the shapes to fit. I feel that most of the basic shapes can be turned for the most part.
These masters will then be fiberglassed and cast using clear fiberglass for the actual parts. (A system which REL uses). I will experiment with this process using simple shapes and see how it goes before beginning the actual model just to see if my proposed processes will work to my satisfaction.
Thanks again for all of the advice and happy modeling!


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

MGagen said:


> More Accurate
> --------
> Polar Lights Decal Guide
> Alan Sinclair
> ...


Has anyone actually compared these plans to each... why is all this credit given to the PL Decal Guide?

Out of curiosity I did an overlay of two views of both the Sinclair and Casimiro plans with the PL plans...


_Click to enlarge_


_Click to enlarge_​
I see mistakes from both Sinclair and Casimiro popping up in the PL drawings (like shape of the dorsal and placement of the warp dome fasteners). Those are pretty big errors to pop up in the _most accurate_ plans available.

So what is it that sets these plans apart in so many people's minds?


----------



## Bernard Guignar (Sep 9, 2006)

It all depends on your frame of reference. I personally would not consider a Schematic that is intended to show where decals go on a Model as being an Accurate representation of the ship in question on the other hand your comparison shows that based on what ever references that both Sinclair and Casimiro used the PL Schematic is close enough to do the job that it is intended to do. No matter who draws the ship there will always have to be some trade off's and drawings will never be 100% accurate to the model and vice versa The tolerances can get very close yes but never
accurate. That being said I'd like to see a set of schematics Drawing based on the best measurements of the ship.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

^^^ Yes and it's been discussed before over the years here that there exists more accurate plans than Sinclair and Casimiro did from the best measurements of the 11' ship model but choose to keep them secret for commercial reasons. These fans who've had a personal and up-close experience with the Big E act like its an issue of national security to put it bluntly. They have all sorts of red herring justifications for not sharing their research. I'm not sure if it just comes down to an issue of personal prestige, power, control, or greed.

For a historical TV sci-fi subject like this that is a shame. I think one person who's done great half scale models from the 11' ship is Greg Gein so he has goods plans Paramount probably has stashed away too. In this case if its about protecting copyright secrets why doesn't Paramount help out the fans that helped make the Star Trek franchise successful and make some extra bucks off of selling official blueprints. Are they afraid of burying the inaccurate Franz Joseph blueprints once and for all?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I understand your frustration w/regards to drawings/plans and such. I don't understand the rationale I've heard in similar circumstances where the TOS BSG studio models are concerned. There are folks out there who own some of those models yet won't let other fans get close to them to take pics for a variety of reasons I consider to be weak. There are also folks who've managed to get some pics of those models and won't share, either. The only reason for not sharing the pics I have zero problems with is that they gave their word not to share the pics so that *they* could take the pics. 

However, let's face it - those of us who are fans have ZERO entitlement to the pics or plans/drawings. It's frustrating and makes me angry to think on it too long, but at least there are some willing to share their work for free w/o major constraints placed up on those they share their work with - such as Charles Adams and the _Galactica_ plans he drew up. You can get them from him if you inquire - and I have no clue about any costs that might be associated with them - , but the caveat is that you don't share them with anyone else nor use them for commercial gain. 

Oh, well. I refuse to waste any further energy in my life being upset about this particular issue. It's frustrating, but it doesn't bug me like it used to.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

I've heard so many arguments on this subject over the years. It's very hard to take any of this seriously. So far out of the lot Al's(Sinclair) I think is the best if for nothing less, is he has made his CAD documents available. These too need some tweaking but that depends on what your final intention is. But since he made his plans so readily available, and you can easily modify them as you see fit. I don't see what the big deal is over arguing which is the best. Besides everybody has their own different interpretation of the ship. I've known to many experts on this subject, they know so much from watching a small grainy screen. But if you want some idea as to how to size the 11' miniature here you go. The original saucer was thermoformed, here is the limitations. the largest sheet you can get is 6' wide. But the largest thermoforming machine is 5' wide. These guys are not going to want to work more than they have to, after all they are under deadlines and budgets. With that little bit of info, the saucer is going to be under 5' in dia. Which is reflected in all of the drawings. As to what it is, that is good question, the only way you are going to get an accurate measurement is to put a set of calipers on the saucer itself. Other than that your guess is as good as any. 

One other bit of info, when Al(Sinclair) posted links to his documents here on Hobbytalk. He said he had some help from some of the guys that did the restoration. They couldn't give him exact info, but I do believe his word was 'guidance'.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> These fans who've had a personal and up-close experience with the Big E act like its an issue of national security to put it bluntly.


Gary Kerr has taken measurements of the miniature twice. Greg Jein worked from Gary's early prints; Thomas Sasser worked from his later, more accurate ones for the PL. The MR is also said to be based on Gary's prints. Alan Sinclair has discussed his plans with Gary, as well.

Gary's prevented from sharing his own blueprints due to contract with Paramount, I believe it is, certainly not due to ego or stubbornness or somesuch petty reason. (We may still see them published some day.) He has shared information on several occasions.

Here are some very interesting things he has shared here on hobbytalk:
(how big is TOS E thread)
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=1956045&postcount=472
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=1962498&postcount=489

(this thread)
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2003294&postcount=20


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

On this topic... if someone is under contract not to share their plans, then they shouldn't be sharing their plans. Period. So if it is shared with one (non-paramount) person but not another, then the argument against sharing comes down to preference (of who to share with) and not contract.

Personally, if you have information but hide it from others, then the information is pretty much pointless. And saying that unseen plans are the best is like me saying that I've made the best model of the Enterprise ever, but won't show anyone.


But back to what I was asking... what is so magical about the PL plans? Their high regard seems either arbitrary or based on bias, but not on the merits of the plans themselves (at least from what I've seen at this point).


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

It's been shared only with Paramount licensees, no-doubt authorized by Paramount.

Why is the PL guide considered best? Because it is based on the model that is based on the secret plans that are based on direct measurements. Thomas has said the diagram is accurate except for some small details that are (deliberately!) inaccurate, including the bridge dome. Granted, a belief that it is best requires a certain amount of trust of those involved -- accuracy of drawing of a drawing of a drawing and all that. But it is the only available drawing made with the benefit of all of those direct measurements of the 11' studio model.

Any of the three cited plans are likely sufficiently accurate to make a very nice model. The differences are slight -- much less than the differences between the four models of the ship we've seen on screen during the series! (I think I got all of them: 11'er, 3'er, AMT 18"er (Trouble with Tribbles), and that little 3"er (Catspaw).


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I just wish Paramount would release these semi-official/official plans as the new edition of Star Trek blueprints, maybe including the set plans too. For those of us who can't afford one of the licensed 1/350 TOS replicas, it seems we could never buy a single user license to make our own private model.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

Ok, what about the Everhart set of Enterprise blueprints?

Where do they fit in this mess?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Steve Mavronis said:


> I just wish Paramount would release these semi-official/official plans as the new edition of Star Trek blueprints, maybe including the set plans too. For those of us who can't afford one of the licensed 1/350 TOS replicas, it seems we could never buy a single user license to make our own private model.


Actually, if you want to build your own model, you don't need a license. So long as it's not going to be copied with the intent to sell those copies, you can go to town building your own in whatever scale you want. You can even scratchbuild one, paint it up all purty and sell it and Paraborg can't do a thing. 

'Course, then again, most of the Garage Kit industry doesn't have a license to sell what they do, so it's sort of a moot point until such time as Paraborg decides to send you a C&D (Cease and Desist).


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

swhite228 said:


> Ok, what about the Everhart set of Enterprise blueprints?


If they are the ones I'm thinking of, they are largely based on the Franz Joseph plans... which were never that close to what the actual model looked like.

*Edit:* Oh... my mistake. 

I realized which plans you are talking about now. The ones featured in Scale Modeler back in the late 1980s as I recall. Yeah, for the longest time those were the best plans available (and the ones used for making the 22" model from what I can tell).

Here is a side by side comparison with the Sinclair plans... it should illustrate just how far off it is compared with the Sinclair/Casimiro/PL plans.


_Click to enlarge_​


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

For ease of use, I believe I will go with the Sinclair plans. However, I will "tweek" them where I feel they need to be. CAD format drawings are very desireable to me at this point. I wish I could afford the Kit offered of the 66" TOS Enterprise because I would just buy that kit and build it, but at 3500.00 bucks, it's WAY out of my modeling budget. Thanks again for all of the comments, I learn a little something with each and every one of them!


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Actually, if you want to build your own model, you don't need a license. So long as it's not going to be copied with the intent to sell those copies, you can go to town building your own in whatever scale you want. You can even scratchbuild one, paint it up all purty and sell it and Paraborg can't do a thing.
> 
> 'Course, then again, most of the Garage Kit industry doesn't have a license to sell what they do, so it's sort of a moot point until such time as Paraborg decides to send you a C&D (Cease and Desist).


Well it's actually all gray area. It's the doctrine of fair use, codified in the US copyright act but not defined. Only the courts can define it after considering the particulars of a case. I most certainly consider it fair use to scratchbuild a 1701, and I'm sure the copyright holder wouldn't argue (while they wouldn't explicitly agree with me, no doubt). The selling of this model is what would make the question more interesting. And if I do it again, selling a second one, I'm starting to get in muddier water. At what point do I stop being a hobbyist and start being an unlicensed replica vendor?

Paramount has C&D'ed GKers in the past, but I don't think it's happened recently. I think they have at least a limited understanding of the lack of wisdom in biting the hand that feeds them.


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

Captain April said:


> Until then, I suppose one could do a cut-and-paste wtih the Sinclair and Casimiro drawings, putting together the features each one got right, or at least closer.
> 
> And, of course, there's always Gary Kerr's highly classified drawings.
> 
> ...


_Mem'ries, like the corners of my mind...._


----------



## publiusr (Jul 27, 2006)

Kerr's are the best so far.


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

Yeah, but we really don't have access to his plans, so....


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

"Most accurate" is a highly subjective term. It is accurate down to the the imperfections? Or does it straighten those out? Is it accurate in regard to the markings or is it a good solid? Should a TOS plan include the screws? Should it omit details on the left side? Should the insides of the engines be different?

A problem common to all plans drawn in 2d is view inconsistencies?

Here is the Sinclair plan overlaid on the Casmiro plan. They say the length is 11' 2". I have aligned bow to end of the engines. 

http://i1319.photobucket.com/albums/t662/bigjimslade07054/TOS/Screen%20Shot%202017-07-17%20at%207.34.21%20PM_zpswqqjszkc.png

If you ignore the markings, you can see there are very few differences (as you would expect). The most substantial difference is in the pylons. I have been working on a 3d scan that might resolve this.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*An illustration of Plan Accuracy*

Here is an simple illustration of a a major problem of plan accuracy. Most plans are drawn in 2D (rather than 3D). This inevitably causes problems of view inconsistency. The Sinclair plans are available in 2D Autocad files making this example easy to do. 

Here I have oriented the side and top views in 3D.











Now I extrude the edge of the hangar from the two and side views and intersect to create the curve in 3D.











But now, going to a rear view, the curve just generated is inconsistent with the 3D curve not lining up with the 2D curve in this view:










I do not give this example to trash the Sinclair plans. This view inconsistency problem occurs in all plans drawn in 2D of everything (ships, plans, tanks, whatever). When working with 3D solids, these view inconsistencies are the dead giveaway of 2d plans.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Can't see the links due to Photobucket's new rules about 3rd party hosting, I'm guessing?


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

You have to click on them for that reason.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

bigjimslade said:


> You have to click on them for that reason.


Even when clicking on the links I see the "upgrade your account" ransom image.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

MartyS said:


> Even when clicking on the links I see the "upgrade your account" ransom image.


Let me see if I can find an alternative. Photobucket has no use any more then.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing (May 27, 2014)

bigjimslade said:


> Let me see if I can find an alternative. Photobucket has no use any more then.


...incredulous behavior on their part...


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

I moved the images to FLICKR and updated the OP. I am done with Photobucket as I imagine a lot of people are.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Interestingly, the Sinclair and Casimiro plans give 134" (11'-2") as the length. The Smithsonian claims the length is 135". If you want accuracy, you're going to have to pry the numbers from the Smithsonian.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Shrinkage when the warp plasma is cold?


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

The problem with trying to vacuform a five foot diameter saucer in 1964 on a limited budget.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Maybe taking it apart and putting it back together a couple of times resulted in the extra inch? Though I'd hate to think there's that much slop in the fittings.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

If having to decide I would go with the Smithsonian measurements since they had the most intensive investigation ever performed during the recent restoration.


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

The Smithsonian figures are most likely just them rounding things off for the sake of simplicity.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

The placard in the Smithsonian says 11' (132")

The director says 135"
How Big is the Starship Enterprise? | At the Smithsonian | Smithsonian

Casimiro and Sinclair say 134.

This diagram appears to show 132"
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/smithsonian-model-jan16/kerr_prelim_diagram_1.jpg


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Here are the Casimiro and Sinclair plans overlaid.You can see they go nearly identical. The pylon position is different and there are some shape differences.










After seeing this, the devil in me wants to know how long it will take for people to fan out to every possible Sci-Fi modeing board and post that Sinclair stole his plan from Casimiro or Casimiro stole his plan from Sinclair. :wink2:


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

To be honest I have never heard of either Casimiro or Sinclair until this thread.
The only expert I am familiar with is Shaw who no longer posts here.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Richard Baker said:


> To be honest I have never heard of either Casimiro or Sinclair until this thread.
> The only expert I am familiar with is Shaw who no longer posts here.


Mr. Shaw focused on the 33" model; Casimiro and Sinclair the 132", 133", 134", 135" model. As a generous sharer of information, I suspect Mr. Shaw was frustrated by the niggardly approach to sharing in this community.


----------



## Newbie123 (Sep 7, 2016)

*Modeller formerly known as Starseeker*

Shaw did focus on the 33" and the Phase 2 but from 1999 right into early 2016 before he was driven away, he'd uploaded a lot of material to HT re the 11', including some very detailed plans. His research was remarkable and painstaking. On one thread I overlaid Casmiro's, Sinclairs, and Shaw's drawings, and there were subtle differences in all 3. But given the amount of research that went into Shaw's, until someone 3D scans the miniature, his must remain the gold standard. Worth seeking out his threads, if they still exist. Of course the images probably are gone. Unless someone has downloaded them and has a way to re-up. Tho' I'm not sure how Shaw would feel about that. My Photobucket is no more and I've not looked for a replacement yet.


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

Over time, I would read Shaw's posts and was amazed on the sheer amount of work that he put in on his drawings, etc. Very useful and interesting information that he had and I for one was very grateful that he was posting and discussing it. I was shocked at the hate that was being thrown at him and could not understand it. I don't blame him one bit for stopping and leaving. I look at what we lost with all the stuff he didn't post and what Shaw has done since then.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

When Shaw left, HobbyTalk at the time did not have any Moderators at all- a lot of wonderful discussions went toxic needlessly.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Returning to the accuracy of plans, take a look at this area and think about it in 3D.










Let's assume that the bottom is the same shape as the top. At the arrowhead, there should be a flat area in the profile. In order to keep the curve of the arrowhead smooth, the profile in this vicinity would have to look something like this (vertical exaggerated):










Yet I have never seen a TOS plan that had anything like that.


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

Shaw's forum over on treknographics101


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Captain Robert April said:


> Shaw's forum over on treknographics101


Thanks!
Interesting site- just joined


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

This is something I have played with over the years. I have not put all the pieces together yet. The problem of doing something like this in 3D is that you have to create major components in separate files then bring them all together. I have a lot of my old Turbocad files that I have not yet converted.

I decided to avoid the problems of defects in the studio model by starting from the measurements in the writers' guide. Everything is drawn based upon a 947' length. That way I don't have to worry about "what scale is the model." I used English units because that it what the thing was obviously based on.

I did have to deviate from my writers' guide basis for the warp engines. If I slavishly followed that , the warp engines turn out too short, too far back on the pylons, and spaced way too far apart. 

From there, I try to do as a ship builder would with faired lines. I am trying to build a spaceship here, not slavishly recreate every defect.

This is not a high priority item for me right now but maybe some day I can get out some plans generated off a 3D model that do not have the defects of 2D drawn plans (e.g., the absolutely impossible engineering hull profile that is the norm).


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

BigJimSlade, it looks awesome as it is....


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*More 2D to 3D chaos*

I dug this and my notes on it out of my files. The hangar door area on the refit and TOS is the most maddening part. The door is shown as spherical in every plan I have seen. There ain't no way, no how that the door comes out a sphere. 

This is the door shape that I came up with that I think matches the photo references. 




























From the back and top, the profile is round (looking spherical). From the side, the slope is steeper than spherical.

However, there ain't no way, no how, that a door this odd shape could ever open.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

bigjimslade said:


> However, there ain't no way, no how, that a door this odd shape could ever open.


As long as the individual slices can slide past each other it would work just fine.

Of course none of the plans show a properly designed door, each section should be in front or behind the next, sitting in their own tracks. Or there are crazy complicated mechanics to retract each section back so it can then slide inside the next section, then 2 sections are retracted and slide inside the 3rd, etc. Maybe they use tractor beams to move the panels...

If I ever get around to building another 1:350 1701 I might 3D print a working door for the bay. Actually I've thought about creating a 3D printed bay with a working door. My CAD skills are probably just good enough to do that, with my printer I could probably build one about 10 inches long.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

MartyS said:


> As long as the individual slices can slide past each other it would work just fine.
> 
> Of course none of the plans show a properly designed door, each section should be in front or behind the next, sitting in their own tracks. Or there are crazy complicated mechanics to retract each section back so it can then slide inside the next section, then 2 sections are retracted and slide inside the 3rd, etc. Maybe they use tractor beams to move the panels...
> 
> If I ever get around to building another 1:350 1701 I might 3D print a working door for the bay. Actually I've thought about creating a 3D printed bay with a working door. My CAD skills are probably just good enough to do that, with my printer I could probably build one about 10 inches long.


They can't slide past each either because of the change of shape. Even if the panels were offset, they would not go past the next one.


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

How the doors operate is, however, beside the point that on the model, the doors are, in fact, a hemisphere.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

The doors on the model are not a hemisphere.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

bigjimslade said:


> They can't slide past each either because of the change of shape. Even if the panels were offset, they would not go past the next one.


The panels with less curvature could fit behind the panels with more, so it would work. The real problem is the size of the opening when all the panels are stacked, the panels with less curvature would end up blocking some of the sides leaving a more narrow opening, defeating the purpose of having that type of sliding panel door.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

/\ /\ What Marty said.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

It appears that the area closer to the centerline has a greater curvature. If this had any chance to work , they would open over the outer panels. However, the change in curvature throughout would make any opening very difficult.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Here is another from my study files. The cab and the dome above have been moved back slightly but noticeably, the door radius is increased, and it is changed to a sphere. These factors have been balanced to reduce the height of the cab over the door to a reasonable level. It is still a bit taller than photoreferences would suggest.










Not that the paths of the grid lines here are off of what is on the 11' model while what I have above pretty much matches.

The reason I have raised all this is to illustrate that the answer to the OP's question depends upon how you define accurate. Is accurate slavish copying of defects in the studio model or is it an artistically correct representation of what one generally sees on the screen? The hangar doors here on the 11' model are obviously defective. When I first saw them at the Smithsonian I thought they were laughable. Would you want your "accurate" model to attach the domes with 10' long plastic tabs and 3' diameter screws?

If you create plans that make them spherical to match the inside-out shots, you have to adjust the outside-in views of the model.

If you are doing a plan that is designed for painting, the views can be inconsistent while still being accurate. 

In conclusion, you have to ask what is the most accurate plan for some specific purpose.


----------



## RetiredMSgt1701 (Nov 17, 2015)

bigjimslade said:


> If you create plans that make them spherical to match the inside-out shots, you have to adjust the outside-in views of the model.
> 
> If you are doing a plan that is designed for painting, the views can be inconsistent while still being accurate.
> 
> In conclusion, you have to ask what is the most accurate plan for some specific purpose.


Jim, I agree. The plans would need to fit the purpose. For example, if you were trying to make a CGI wire mesh to create a virtual 3D representation of the model to re-broadcast TOS (like CBS did for the Remastered release), you might want to go into exacting detail of the 60's production model. Even they had to step it back a bit in detail to allow a faster render of the CGI model.

But, as soon as you depart from the standard 16 (I think) canned shots as shown on the original broadcast, you start stepping away from the model accurate representation to a more idealized, fantasized version of the ship. If you show the Port side of the ship beyond what was broadcast, you are not showing an accurate representation of the model.

Just expanding on your thought, BigJimSlade. 

Thanks for your 3D drawings! They look awesome!

LLAP!

Steve


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

Has anyone considered that the clamshell segments might be somewhat pliable, i.e., they change shape slightly while opening and closing, then become a rigid hemisphere when closed.

Just a thought...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Sometimes a thread just won't stay dead. And when it's one like this, I don't mind at all!



bigjimslade said:


> At the arrowhead, there should be a flat area in the profile. In order to keep the curve of the arrowhead smooth, the profile in this vicinity would have to look something like this (vertical exaggerated):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're right about the shape. Here's that area in an orthographic side view of my model. You can see just that effect (Click to link to full size image):



What's more, the transition from the flat trench to the round hull is not quite what it looks like. The shape of the lathed hull tucks subtlety in and back out, coke-bottle-like, just at the transition point. This causes what would be a pointy elliptical intersection of the two shapes into a more rounded shape. There is also quite a bit of "sanding" where a hard transition would otherwise be.

On the subject of the hangar: For what it's worth, here's my take on how the doors _could_ operate. These are images of my CGI Enterprise hangar in various stages of completion. They illustrate a few points. 

1. The doors can stack and slide by each other if they are nested.





2. There's no room for a control booth in that little window above the doors. I interpreted it as a cowling for the long range rear sensors; a counterpart for the three round ports on the front of the saucer.



3. Unfortunately, this detail, even when shortened by having part of it split away with the doors, as on mine, will still be visible from the inside when the doors are open. Since it is not on-axis, but instead extends "downhill" onto the aft surface of the doors, it hangs down into the view. If this bothers you, I suggest painting the underside of it black, so it isn't so obvious against the black of space (a sure-fire launch hazard).



Finally, some views of my completed hangar:





As always, when it comes to the "Big E," YMMV.

M.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

This is "A" mathematically correct profile (without the trench cut into it) I came up with.

The Red is a line. The green is a curve. It corresponds to the arrowhead. It is tangent to the red line and tangent to an imaginary horizontal line at the right end. That tangency causes the edge of the arrowhead to be aligned fore/aft (and tangent to the trench). The cyan is a curve that is tangent to the green curve 

Once the trench is cut out, the green area becomes straight and the cyan area gets cut down so that at the left side it is even with the right side of the red.










I suspect that TOS profile is not mathematically correct and that it was Bondo'ed to give this effect.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

'made by hand' trumps 'computer perfection' once again.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

I add the observation that no system of regularly-spaced decks fits the interior. If you put a window at a rational height on one deck and have regularly spaced decks (of any rational height) you will have windows at a ridiculous height (e.g. at the knees) on some other deck. Here the Refit and TOS share attributes.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)




----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Try the irregularly spaced windows on the neck.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

No doubt some would have to move. Any attempt I would make to add an interior would likely require some adjustment. For example, my Enterprise shown above has two secondary hull windows moved (one on each side) to make them appear on the level of the other windows in the hangar observation galley. Otherwise, they would open onto a cramped, inter-bulkhead space that would serve no purpose.

I am a purist, but there are limits...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

And, ya know, just what IS in the neck that needs all those windows??
You'd think it would be mostly structural members, piping, conduits, power runs, the lift shaft...


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

John P said:


> And, ya know, just what IS in the neck that needs all those windows??
> You'd think it would be mostly structural members, piping, conduits, power runs, the lift shaft...


IIRC there are supposed to be small observation lounges in the neck


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

I found that i had most of the parts lying around. I few I had to build from scratch. I think I have everything together now. Something this large has to be built in separate files.

My approach to this was to accept that TOS studio model is just full of defects so there is no point in trying to mimic it exactly. I used the writer's guide measurements as the starting point.However, I moved the warp engines in and lengthened them to be more like the studio model. 

I also made the hangar door spheres and cheated with the position of the dome above. 

In regard to window placement, I lined things up geometrically. I made rectangular windows go in horizontally (creating a horizontal sill) and round windows go in perpendicular to the surface. While I tried to match the window patterns, I did not even attempt to make the windows line up with the grids on the original. I mirrored the right side of the engineering hull and neck. I left the saucer windows as is and did not do like the PL kit.

I forgot what else I might have done over the years.

Primary references beyond photos were the Sinclair and Casimiro plans. I verified details against those two but there were a number of places I disagreed. My sizing is different from them and, because I did this in 3D, there are no view inconsistency errors. Those plans use a length of 134". The Smithsonian says it is actually 135". I avoided that problem by making it 947 FEET, the engineering hull is 340 FEET and the saucer is 417. I made no attempt to scale this to the studio model other than lengthening the warp engines. I think I made them 510' long rather than 504' (which looked too short).

If there is an interest and I have time, I could do overlays of the three to see how they compare.



















The rendering makes the details harder to see.










Now that it is all together, I will likely modify it every time I see a reference photo that suggests some changes (like what happen with the refit).


----------



## Indy5000 (Sep 23, 2017)

Rejoined after a while and looking around again. I always kind of wondered about the "windows" on the ship that are angled so obliquely. Considering that the premise of the ship has the decks using artificial gravity, do the floors actually all have to run parallel since you are being "pulled" down to them anyway? You could do a Fred Astaire dance 360 degrees and not know it if the gravity and reference points match your perspective. Probably makes things even more unworkable, but fun to think about...


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

BigJimSlade, I would love to see the comparisons. I have avoided making a mesh, because I am still relearning Lightwave. And I am a stickler for doing it right. Of course, this means I barely get anything done at all. Oh well, I try. Thanks for all the great information you are detailing here!


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

bigjimslade said:


> Here is another from my study files. The cab and the dome above have been moved back slightly but noticeably, the door radius is increased, and it is changed to a sphere. These factors have been balanced to reduce the height of the cab over the door to a reasonable level. It is still a bit taller than photoreferences would suggest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Indy5000 (Sep 23, 2017)

My recollection is that they never opened very wide - maybe 1/3 of the full diameter.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

IIRC the Hangar Deck interior model was built in forced perspective, there have been some studio shots but I have never seen a production blueprint of it.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

OK, the Sinclair plan is in DWG so it's easy overlay. I edited the Sinclair plan to delete all the drawn lines (as opposed to the physical lines). I did not include them in mine so they just added clutter. I have matched the top view to the center of the saucer and to the saucer radius.










I used the writer's guide length for the engineering hull. Maybe the studio model's is longer relative to the saucer. Ignoring the length difference, I have the dome moved farther forward from the back to support spherical doors. 










Here you can see the 2d plan problem at work. Note how the profile is on mine here. Few plans take the cutout into account.










As we move farther from the match point, greater location differences show up.



















The next step is to see how this model compares with the various plans and reference photos then make any corrections. Returning to the question of accuracy, you have the problem of accurate to what? As slavish copy of the 11' model with the irregular saucer shape, missing detail on the left side, different length warp engines, and different warp engine details?

I already pointed out that I moved the dome back a little to make rational, working hangar doors.

The goal here is to make the thing looks as much as possible like the studio model but without the defects of the studio model.


----------

