# MR TOS Enterprise Nacelle Droop Correction Possible?



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

OK, I love my MR E but one issue is driving me straight up the proverbial wall: Nacelle droop! Am I the only one? 

Mine was like that from the get-go.

Has anyone ever tried to improve this droop that seems to be slight but consistent on just about every Master Replicas E that I have ever seen? Even with the metal armature within, this demon has plagued this otherwise gorgeous model, and I was wondering if anyone has attempted anything to coax the nacelles up into a more horizontal position. They seem to be about one (to one and a half) degrees off--almost as a rule. Not a lot, but the eye picks that up. Mine is pictured below: the first pic shows the "raw" image with nacelle droop, the angle of which is indicated by the red line. The green line shows a correct, horizontal axis. The 2nd pic shows the nacelle repositioned via Photoshop into the correct horizontal axis, having been rotated exactly 1º clockwise. 

I always wondered if one can dare to heat a joint (which one?) and slowly, and maybe in increments, ratchet those babies up and prop them so long enough to take. One problem would be how to get them to keep that new position permanently...

And I suppose this same question could also apply to any R2 TOS Enterprise, that isn't quite right.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?


----------



## Spidey7 (Jun 5, 2008)

Honestly, I can't even see it. I know how it is to be a perfectionist about something that you love, but you're talking about the risk of permanently damaging a BEAUTIFUL and expensive collectible over 1 degree of perceived shift that no one else would even notice. Between heating it up and trying to bend the internal armature by hand, I'd be worried about blistering/marking up the paint, cracking the model, warping the armature, breaking an internal weld, etc. I think she's a stunning piece that I envy you for having just the way she is. I would vote for "let it go". It would be different if there were a much more noticeable droop in the nacelles, but even switching back and forth between your 2 pictures, they look great to me. You gotta' do what you gotta' do, but if she was mine, I would just be happy with her "as is", and not risk breaking her.


----------



## clactonite (Dec 16, 2006)

Totally agree with Spidey. It's a stunning model as is. There are a lot of risks involved in trying to heat and bend it including the fact that the electrics to the nacelles will be running through the pylons.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Honestly I don't think there is an easy fix or fix worth trying. The only way you could possibly fix it permanently would be to cut the model apart, etc. Which you obviously don't want to do. Bending things generally ins't a real fix, just a fix of the symptom. If they droop because of weight they will continue to droop if you bend them back up. And, if they were affixed in a drooped position to start with, they still will return to that position. The only thing to consider, if you think the problem is getting worse, is to add clear supports under the engine tubes to prevent further sagging. I had to do something like this on a huge 4 foot long vinyl godzilla that developed tail droop over time.


----------



## paustin (Oct 18, 2006)

I know you see it everytime you look at it, I get it. I am the same way. But honestly she's a beauty and it is barely noticeable. I think you are one of the lucky ones as I've seen some that have major dropage.
Here's how I would try and approach it, I hope it helps. I would compare it to the studio model which does seem to have some dropage.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 1, 2001)

A friend of my straightened out one of the MR Enterprises. The nacelles had begun drooping after about three months, so Bill said "Let's hang it upside down for three months!" Time and gravity straightened the nacelles, and Bill added additional clear acrylic rods to the base to keep them that way.

Tom


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I appreciate the input from everyone! 

As much as this issue bugs me, and it does, I think I'm too chicken to try anything in the way of a fix that requires heating, especially since there are wires in there as clactonite pointed out. 

I don't think the sag has gotten any worse since I got the thing a couple of years ago. But I will take a new picture and superimpose with the old one that I posted here to see if there's any difference. Depending on the angle the sag is more noticeable than even this pic shows. The lower the angle the less the sag, but a higher angle showing more of the upper nacelles, as a standing person would view it, tends to bring out the sag.

I have considered the clear acrylic rods to prop them up, but don't know if that would look lame. I might try it to see how it looks and see if that helps to gently raise the back ends enough to level them.

As far as the 11-foot studio model, I don't really see any sag on the nacelles, paustin, except maybe slightly on the port nacelle? That picture above of the studio model appears to show sag to both nacelles but that's because the whole ship is tilting backwards.

Interestingly, though, look at the comparison pic of the 1964 original model vs a later shot (1968?) below. You can see what appears to be slight nacelle droop on the later. Also, you can see a bit more of droop on the port nacelle in that b/w frontal shot.

By the way, this is a pretty cool site: http://startrekhistory.com/models.html


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Maybe the folks at MR were going for the look of the E at the end of filming...

The nacelles probably suffered some sag over the 3 seasons. Maybe it ended up looking that way by the time it wrapped.

It would be odd that - with the metal armature inside - that it was anything other than what they intended it to be.

Messing with it would be a bad gamble IMO.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

J_Indy said:


> Maybe the folks at MR were going for the look of the E at the end of filming...
> 
> The nacelles probably suffered some sag over the 3 seasons. Maybe it ended up looking that way by the time it wrapped.
> 
> ...


You might be right on all counts... thanks!


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

A metal armature inside means nothing if its not 1) true and straight 2) securely fastened 3) not flexible as a lot of metal can and does bend 4)floating inside the struts. If the struts are slipped over something and are hollow (for wires etc) then they can sag and bop around with a metal rod inside not touching or secured to anything.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

djnick66 said:


> A metal armature inside means nothing if its not 1) true and straight 2) securely fastened 3) not flexible as a lot of metal can and does bend 4)floating inside the struts. If the struts are slipped over something and are hollow (for wires etc) then they can sag and bop around with a metal rod inside not touching or secured to anything.


Perhaps.....

However - if BOTH engines are tilted by the same amount - then I think it is more likely that MR intended them to be that way.

Because the odds of them both sagging to exactly the same angle is unlikely IMO.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

OCD is a bad thing. But, learn to live with it.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Antimatter said:


> OCD is a bad thing. But, learn to live with it.


Thanks, but we do walk through the valley of models and miniatures.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> The nacelle struts seem to be aligned correctly with the nacelles but it looks as though the secondary hull is not lined up as it should be with the saucer that is causing the alignment problem. It's not much as you point out--just barely noticeable.


Good observation. The problem may be with the hole into which the rod fits--it may be too large and allows the ship to rock back just enough to make the nacelles appear droopy. In that case, the saucer would have to be the one drooping slightly, as you suggest, and that in combination with the ship not sitting exactly horizontal onto the rod could be culprit.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> The nacelle struts seem to be aligned correctly with the nacelles but it looks as though the secondary hull is not lined up as it should be with the saucer that is causing the alignment problem. It's not much as you point out--just barely noticeable.


I always thought it was the nacelles that drooped but, I've pretty much determined that it's the primary hull that does not sit in level alignment on the "neck": When I raise the back of the stand up with about a 1/4" to 3/8" shim, the nacellesbecome horizontal, the secondary hull looks level and the rod of the base looks vertical. Of course, the saucer now droops slightly forward.


----------



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

Never noticed it on mine all the years I've had it.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

1711rob said:


> Never noticed it on mine all the years I've had it.


Oh man, that's the number one thing that has always bugged me about the MR E. And they all seem to have that issue from what I have seen. Do you notice it now that it's been mentioned? If so, I apologize for doing that to you!


----------

