# Poll: Klingon D-7 1/350th?



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

I personally would like to see a Klingon D-7 as the next 1/350th kit.

I have a Capt Cardboard D-7 that uses decals that match the 
original filming minature. Not looking forward to applying those
decals to the front curvy hull, though it is a fantastic model.

Whether or not you want to see the Klingon D-7 as the next
1/350th kit, 

I'd like to take a poll on the issues of the windows.

I know the filming miniature had decals and not real windows
like the 1701 TOS production model.

But they obviously were there to represent windows.

I personally would like to see, assuming Round2 produces one,
a Klingon D-7 kit that had clear window inserts for all those decaled ports.

Then they could be either light sealed to simulate windows perhaps 
shuttered for battle(as some of the original miniatures' decals
seem to suggest)

or one could choose which ports to light at their leisure.

They could be made to be flush with the hull like the TOS
1701 and the 1701-A 1/350ths are.

That way there would be no struggling with decal placement
on a complex curved surface,

plus I believe if the flush window are made in the same size
and shape the model will look even more like a true starship
then the filming miniature did.

Heck Round 2 could even include a set of decals in the box
for the purest who could then just putty over the windows
and apply the decals over them! 

You can vote for more then one option, by the way.


----------



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

BTWay, before anyone who may be a stickler for accuracy notices, I am aware that the original filming miniature's windows might not have been decals.

Don't know for sure either way, but decals versus real windows versus a choice of both was the main thrust of what I am trying to discern people's preference for in this poll.


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

I would much rather buy a 1/350 Ktinga than a D7.


----------



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

I'm sure there are many people who might pick another 1/350th model.
Nothing wrong with that.

But in this poll I'm simply addressing the window ports issue for the D-7.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I'm sure there are many people who might pick another 1/350th model.
> Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> But in this poll I'm simply addressing the window ports issue for the D-7.


A 1/350 D-7 would be my choice over a K'tinga, since I'm primarily interested in TOS models! And actual windows would be much more preferable than decals.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I would prefer a K'tinga over TOS D-7 too but I will take whatever they produce (assuming it is ever produced).


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

I think windows molded in with decals included would satisfy most everyone. Puttying and sanding arould the installed windows inserts to achieve a smooth surface for the decals doesn't seem like an unreasonable effort to me. 


I also have a Capt Cardboard SS D-7 kit. A fantastic (and huge) kit. I am very pleased Scott had one to sell recently. Whatever it takes, the windows on this D-7 will be lit (the included decals just won't cut it). Lighting it not be easy but definitely necessary. The unlit D-7 studio model, a very cool enemy ship design, looks a bit lifeless and unrealistic on the screen. I am sure it would have been lit had budget and time allowed.

Either a 350 D-7, 350 K'Tinga, or large scale USS Excelsior kit would be great to me.


----------



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

Sparky said:


> I think windows molded in with decals included would satisfy most everyone. Puttying and sanding arould the installed windows inserts to achieve a smooth surface for the decals doesn't seem like an unreasonable effort to me.
> 
> 
> I also have a Capt Cardboard SS D-7 kit. A fantastic (and huge) kit. I am very pleased Scott had one to sell recently. Whatever it takes, the windows on this D-7 will be lit (the included decals just won't cut it). Lighting it not be easy but definitely necessary. The unlit D-7 studio model, a very cool enemy ship design, looks a bit lifeless and unrealistic on the screen. I am sure it would have been lit had budget and time allowed.
> ...


I've never bothered to ask him about it, but I've often wondered if Capt Cardboard would consider creating another forward boom and command module and above deck/bridge that had windows carved out in them where the ports would be. 

I'd easily pop for another $50 or even a little more to buy it as a replacement for my kit's un-windowed forward sections.

I think not only many of those of us who have already bought his kit would spring for it, but he could offer it as an upgrade option for new kit buyers as well.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

phicks said:


> I would much rather buy a 1/350 Ktinga than a D7.







Me too and I've no interest in a D7 in that scale. I think that 1/350th is the ideal size to get some nice detail on a K'Tinga and they were thinking about doing a K'Tinga before too.


----------



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

phicks said:


> I would much rather buy a 1/350 Ktinga than a D7.






SUNGOD said:


> Me too and I've no interest in a D7 in that scale. . . .


Fair enough.

But again, not the subject of this thread.

But I wouldn't tell anyone to like or dislike something.

You guys could start a "I want a 1/350th K'Tinga thread."

And I promise not to make any "I'd rather have a 1/350th D-7" or "I don't want a 1/350th K'Tinga" comments in it. 


As far as I'm concerned, any of you can discuss just about anything in any of my threads.
It would be good though if you would comment on the subject in some way too though.

I'd love to see a K'Tinga in 1/350th scale too.

The windows aren't really an issue with the K'Tinga - just the D-7,
since the K'Tinga's lighted features are pretty well documented.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Sorry Chuck I just dived in there without reading it properly. As for windows I always prefer windows in transparent plastic like the windows on the 1/350th Enterprises from R2. I hate decals to represent windows.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

With windows as large as they are in 1/350 there is no reason why they cant be open or with clear inserts. This isn't 1966 and its not that hard to make parts that fit and fit flush. If you don't want them, its easy to fill any gaps and sand them out. Likewise, there aren't that many windows in a D-7 anyway and if you had to cut them out for lighting, its just an afternoons work.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

I would just love to see the D-7 get it's due - it's one of the best looking "bad guy" ships ever.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I don't quite understand something: If a kit included open window ports with flush clear plastic windows, a la the Enterprise, how would decals be used as an option if included? I don't see the point. Unless one were to fill the window ports and use the decals instead? That makes no sense either. That's like taking the motor out of your car and hitching it with horses. I mean even if the studio model used decals, which apparently is debatable, it makes little sense to fill window ports and then use decals to mimic window ports. It's silly, IMHO.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Well some people would want to light it up and have the clear windows. Others probably would want to try to mimic the studio model with painted windows. So they would use decals. 

It's really no different than when I build airliner kits (rarely). The kits usually have clear windows, but I putty and sand them all smooth and add new windows with black decal since you can't see inside anyway.


----------



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

SUNGOD said:


> Sorry Chuck I just dived in there without reading it properly. As for windows I always prefer windows in transparent plastic like the windows on the 1/350th Enterprises from R2. I hate decals to represent windows.


No need to be sorry. I'm not one to quash any discussion, even an off-hand 
comment.

I just wanted to try and bring the focus back on the subject so we didn't
go too far afield and turn it into a KTinga versus D-7 thread. Personally I love both. 


I also believe that if they did the design and CAD work to create the D-7 first 
and got the underlining contours perfect, it would then be easier to produce the K'Tinga.

I believe the underlying contours of the two ships are the same. There are extra plating 
and engine details on the K'Tinga, and I believe there are some differences 
above the bulbous part of the front hull.

But the underlining contours of the K'Tinga I believe to be basically the same.

I might be wrong, it happens more then I would like.

But I'm sure that there are more then one or two members here 
who could offer an authoritive answer to the issue.

If the major underlying contours are indeed the same,

I would imagine that it would be easier to create a dead-on accurate D-7,
and then use that design to modify it into a K'Tinga.

Then it probably would be to create a K'Tinga and then cut away the extras
to design the D-7.

That's just a best guess on my part that I believe to be logical,
but again, I could be wrong.

I'm sure there are a couple of members who could probably tell us
if that is at all a reasonable conclusion.

There's always something one doesn't know about that people
involved in the process of creating these styrene masters do.
Because unlike us laymen, they've actually done it. :thumbsup:


----------



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

djnick66 said:


> Well some people would want to light it up and have the clear windows. Others probably would want to try to mimic the studio model with painted windows. So they would use decals. ...


Exactly! By combining both at the mere additional cost of a simple windows
decals sheet they satisfy both camps.


At this moment in time, of those who expressed a preference, by a margin of 35 to 1, people would like to either have both windows and decals, or windows alone, versus people who would want them to only include decals.

Seems like a pretty big majority would like to have window inserts. And of those 35, 25 would also like to see the decals included too.

I know that right now Round2 has a lot of irons in the fire and are probably waiting to see Christmas sales results before making too many future plans,
but I hope this poll helps them at some point in the future.

So even if you are a member who doesn't care to comment on the subject,
please take the time to vote.

I'm amazed at how attentive and responsive to Trek fans they have been since their reincarnation.

They are doing some incredible work!!!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I'd prefer window inserts for lighting, but understand why some might want flush-with-decals.

Basically (for the D-7), the windows are only on the bulbous forward section, right? Maybe two versions of that section could be included in the kit: with window cutouts and without.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

This is a no-brainer: window inserts (clear, black and white, a la the 1/350 Enterprise).

Those wishing to go the decal route would have an easy time puttying up the window holes, as there aren't very many to begin with. Optional window decals could easily be included on the same decal sheet as the hull markings. 

There's no way R2 would go to the trouble of mastering a big 1/350 version of this subject without providing windows for those who'd like to light it.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> No need to be sorry. I'm not one to quash any discussion, even an off-hand
> comment.
> 
> I just wanted to try and bring the focus back on the subject so we didn't
> ...









Obviously there's a lot more detail on the K'Tinga but only R2 could judge whether it would be worth doing the D7 first I suppose. 

I personally think they'd be better off doing the K'Tinga first as they'd already done some development (as far as we know) but anyway................as you say that's not the purpose of this thread.


----------



## Rocky D (Jul 26, 2013)

I would love to see this kit built with flush windows for lighting, I love the D-7 nice ship with great clean lines. 
I have built several 1/1000th D-7 would be awesome to be able to do it in a big scale with lighting


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

*K'Tinga*

is the K'Tinga in ST the Motion Picture, or is it the one in "The Undiscovered Country " ?


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

woof359 said:


> is the K'Tinga in ST the Motion Picture, or is it the one in "The Undiscovered Country " ?



I believe all of the Klingon Battle Cruisers in all the films were of the K'T'inga class. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

They were all the same model in the films (in fact the Kobiashi Maru shots in TWoK were stock shots from TMP). The only changes for the later Q'onoS One were the additions of photoetched parts to the surface.

FWIW, the D6 and the K'tinga are like the TOS and Refit Es - though they look similar in general appearance, their proportions and sizing are totally different.


----------



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

Paulbo said:


> They were all the same model in the films (in fact the Kobiashi Maru shots in TWoK were stock shots from TMP). The only changes for the later Q'onoS One were the additions of photoetched parts to the surface.
> 
> FWIW, the D6 and the K'tinga are like the TOS and Refit Es - though they look similar in general appearance, their proportions and sizing are totally different.



Are you talking about the D6 from the series _Enterprise_?

Or did you mean to say D7 ?

How about the D7 versus the K'Tinga?

I'm curious about the K'Tinga filming miniature's size, history, etc. . . .


----------



## WOI (Jun 28, 2012)

If you can throw in the idea of making a 1/350 scale Romulan Bird of Prey
kit with the Klingon D-7 Battlecruiser at that scale,I wouldn't resist the
idea of getting them!


----------



## jonboc (Nov 25, 2007)

*I'd buy either one...or both*

I'd buy a TOS version and a Motion Picture version. Each is the perfect, logical companion piece for the 1:350 scale TOS Enterprise and the refit.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Paulbo's correct. The difference between the D7 and the K'tinga is like the differences between the TOS E and the Refit. Both ships are quite different from each other.

I think that a 1/350 D-7 would be a great idea. While I don't mind either window route, I can see how the white/black/clear inserts would work well.


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

I suggested to Steve Neil that he make a mold of the parts he hollowed out for lighting and sell them as an upgrade kit. He decided to not do that. My efforts are to produce the kit exactly as I got it, which was a direct copy of the filming model. I would suggest that someone out there make the boom and forward bulgy dealie in clear and provide a sheet of cut vinyl for window masks. One thing to realize is the boom must have reinforcement so it won't sag, but I think that reinforcement can be smaller diameter than what I use. It still needs to be hollow, to allow wires to feed into the front. If someone wants to make these parts in clear, I'll supply the resin parts to be the masters.

Scott


----------



## orbital drydock (Apr 23, 2013)

CaptCBoard said:


> I suggested to Steve Neil that he make a mold of the parts he hollowed out for lighting and sell them as an upgrade kit. He decided to not do that. My efforts are to produce the kit exactly as I got it, which was a direct copy of the filming model. I would suggest that someone out there make the boom and forward bulgy dealie in clear and provide a sheet of cut vinyl for window masks. One thing to realize is the boom must have reinforcement so it won't sag, but I think that reinforcement can be smaller diameter than what I use. It still needs to be hollow, to allow wires to feed into the front. If someone wants to make these parts in clear, I'll supply the resin parts to be the masters.
> 
> Scott


I've built one of Scotts D-7's & it was a pretty nice kit. If someone does a redo, I would keep the neck support rod the same. I feel like it was around 3/8 - 7/16, or if you go with a smaller diameter rod use heavy wall. That neck is pretty long with some weight at the end.

Also I have all of the window layouts & masks done already, if anyone's interested PM me.

Scott if had more time I'd take you up on that offer. I actually lit the little side windows on the boom & it was a bit tricky. A clear boom & head would be really nice.

I'll be doing one of the 1/350 ktanga builds soon & it's got some clear hollow parts. I'll be doing window masks for it as well.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Carson Dyle said:


> Those wishing to go the decal route would have an easy time puttying up the window holes, as there aren't very many to begin with.


Y'know, after inserting the windows, puttying wouldn't be such a big deal.


----------



## Prologic9 (Dec 4, 2009)

WarpCore Breach said:


> Paulbo's correct. The difference between the D7 and the K'tinga is like the differences between the TOS E and the Refit. Both ships are quite different from each other.


The K'tinga model started its life as a newly built D7 for Phase II. It was a much larger and cleaner build, but the basic shapes of the two ships are exactly the same. 

It would certainly be feasible to turn a large D7 kit into a K'tinga, something you could never do with the Enterprises.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I'm not looking to get into a big debate on this, but look at the D7 and K'tinga side by side and you'll see that every shape and proportion is quite different.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I have a D7 resin and K'tinga resin that are nicely detailed! Haven't built them yet. Steve Neill's K'tinga is a piece of art. The D7 was apparently taken from an original or second generation mold. I forget which, but it is quite nice. About 27 or 28 inches. I'm not sure if the two models are 1/350 exactly, but wow. Thinking of taking pics of both and doing a review for you guys.


----------



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

CaptCBoard said:


> I suggested to Steve Neil that he make a mold of the parts he hollowed out for lighting and sell them as an upgrade kit. He decided to not do that. My efforts are to produce the kit exactly as I got it, which was a direct copy of the filming model. I would suggest that someone out there make the boom and forward bulgy dealie in clear and provide a sheet of cut vinyl for window masks. One thing to realize is the boom must have reinforcement so it won't sag, but I think that reinforcement can be smaller diameter than what I use. It still needs to be hollow, to allow wires to feed into the front. If someone wants to make these parts in clear, I'll supply the resin parts to be the masters.
> 
> Scott


One of the great things I love about your kit is that it was Roto-cast.
I've never seen a smoother, more bubble-free resin kit in my life.
Not that I've owned a ton, but I've a seen a lot at conventions,
not to mention reviews.

If you change your mind and decide to do the upgrade pieces yourself
I don't think anyone would be displeased with the quality.

I think the neck windows would be the only challenge to someone lighting
her, as someone else alluded to. 

Once again fantastic kit!


I have only dry fitted mine so I cannot really measure it accurately.
What are the assembled dimensions? Lengthwise and wingspan etc?

Someone else talked about a D-7 the had bought that was supposed to be 27 or 28 inches long. That seems shorter then your kit appears to be, unless I'm wrong. It has happened before. 


Once again, thanks for taking the time to consider this, and if you do decide
to Roto-cast some clear parts yourself as an upgrade offering, 
I don't think anyone would be displeased with what you come
up with. :thumbsup:


----------



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

SteveR said:


> Y'know, after inserting the windows, puttying wouldn't be such a big deal.


Agreed. 

I think those wanting to go the unlit & decaled route might even want to refrain from puttying. Once she's primed and painted there probably would only be the suggestion of seams left. And those could be used to much more easily properly place the decals. If you make her totally smooth it would be a bit more difficult to place the decals.

But, as you said, if someone wanted to make her perfectly smooth after inserting the windows is should be no big deal. :thumbsup:


----------



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

charonjr said:


> I have a D7 resin and K'tinga resin that are nicely detailed! Haven't built them yet. Steve Neill's K'tinga is a piece of art. The D7 was apparently taken from an original or second generation mold. I forget which, but it is quite nice. About 27 or 28 inches. I'm not sure if the two models are 1/350 exactly, but wow. Thinking of taking pics of both and doing a review for you guys.



Especially interested in hearing about the K'Tinga.

How big is it, etc . . . 

More info please!


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Just got my meds in again and am recovering from antidepressant withdrawal. I'll get on it soon.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Titan Models has remastered the old Sovereign Replicas/ Rich "REL" Long 1:350 K'Tinga, and she's a beauty...

http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=39069

There are two very nice studio scale D7 kits out there (that I know of): The Scott Alexander/ Captain Cardboard version, and the Jim Key/ Custom Replicas version. Both are beautifully engineered, highly accurate kits. 

If you're curious about the Key version I've posted a couple pix of mine here...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157633976226204/

The windows are dry-transfers, as are the hull markings.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I love everything about that 1/350 TMP Klingon model - save for the bridge. It's shape is completely wrong - far too steep and sharp on the sides and contour. If you compare that detail to the studio model, or even REL's studio-scale build, you'll see what I mean.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

If you total up the votes in general - that looks like 101 sales right there!


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Hi Guys, the Titan Models remaster of the K'tinga 24" 1/350 is the one I have. The other is the Key version. Both are hollow, with brass tubes in the neck for lighting. The D7 has a decal sheet for the windows and paint masks for the D7 name and Empire symbol. IIRC, it's 28". The thing that sold me on it is that it's from a 2nd gen mold? I've forgotten. But it is a very nice kit.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

I would LOVE a D7 in that scale! Would be great next to the 1701! not big on the k'tinga.
Jim


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

One advantage on the 1/350th TOS Klingon ship would be expense. If properly scaled, it _should be_ (my amateur guesstimate--bash it all you will) about 3/4's the price of the 1/350th _1701_:


----------



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

CaptCBoard, You've got mail! Email that is . . .


----------



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

PerfesserCoffee said:


> One advantage on the 1/350th TOS Klingon ship would be expense. If properly scaled, it _should be_ (my amateur guesstimate--bash it all you will) about 3/4's the price of the 1/350th _1701_:


Good point.

Also I'd add that, while I'm no engineer, and certainly have never engineered a plastic model kit, 
which I'm sure requires yet another set of skills above simple engineering,

But considering the upgrades they have made to the 1/650 TOS D-7,

Would it be possible to simply scan the pieces in 3D and upsize the pieces, perhaps thickening the styrene and including a metal support rod for the secondary hull, neck and command module?

With the exception of the neck boom and how it connects to the front pod and secondary hull,

the D-7 design pieces seem to not need much support, especially if they
make the plastic pieces thicker.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Good point.
> 
> Also I'd add that, while I'm no engineer, and certain have never engineered a plastic model kit,
> which I'm sure requires yet another set of skills above simple engineering,
> ...


Yeah, the AMT/R2 Klingon ship is as accurate as it can be from what I understand. Simply upscaling, with some improvement in connection points, would do the trick.:thumbsup:


----------



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

They will need a big box though, based on the wingspan
of the secondary hull at 1/350th scale.

Hope they don't decide to chop her up though to fit
in a smaller box. Not an insurmountable issue, but it
would complicate things for the modeler.

Hope they keep the main secondary hull upper and 
lower in one piece. Perhaps reinforce her with that
X-shaped pattern used in the pylons of the 1/350th
TOS E?

Just thinking out loud. . . 

I'll be the first guy to point out I'm no engineer! 

We're up to 99 votes! 

Hope we'll topple 100 soon. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> They will need a big box though, based on the wingspan
> of the secondary hull at 1/350th scale.
> 
> Hope they don't decide to chop her up though to fit
> ...


I concur on all points :thumbsup:


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

Just to keep the record clear--

One of the posts here said that the parts in my D7 kit are rotocast. While I wish that were true, it is not. I just close the molds and pour the resin through gates. Gravity and talcum powder do most of the work.

Scott


----------



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

My mistake.

Sorry!

I could have sworn I remembered it being
discussed somewhere in a thread about
it while waiting for mine.

I must have confused another conversation
with that discussion.

Still, it's the most smooth and bubble-free
resin model I've ever seen.

Gravity and talcum powder?!?

If it's little more then that, then you sir are a master!

I guess you've poured so man kits over the years
you probably can do an incredible pour almost
in your sleep!

It's a fantastic kit.

I hope for everyone's sake you decide to offer
another run!

Thanks once again,
and sorry for the mistake,

Chuck


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

CaptCBoard said:


> Gravity and talcum powder do most of the work.


That's what my doctor said.


----------



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

Well, we broke 100 votes.
Hope that in the future this will help!

Thanks for everyone's input!


----------

