# Round Two New Kit Poll!



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

R2 Blog post
http://www.collectormodel.com/round2-models/1611-round-2-model-kits-and-away-we-go/

Direct survey link
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6HFNN6Z

1. 1k KTinga
2. 1k Reliant
3. 1/32 Galileo
4. 2.5k Akira
5. 1/72 Iron Giant (12")


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

At WF, R2 announced the Cadet (1/2500) KTinga and Reliant as 2013 'definites'. Which, for me, eliminates three of those five models on the list. 

Getting KTinga and Reliant next year, do we need them in two scales for the same year? And getting three new Cadet ships (Refit is being newly tooled), nixes the Akira for me.

Next, Iron Giant. While a watchable story as I recall, it does go back to a single film nearly 20yrs ago for probably the only kit that could be made from that license. Certainly a nice one-off, but what else is on the list?

That leaves Galileo as the only choice for me. Why?

There are two kits left in the original AMT Trek line for a re-release, Galileo and Bridge. They both need major work. 

While budgets may be tight, my feeling is that these two AMT kits have been queued up for 'decades' and should have unquestioned seniority, not thrown against entirely new tools for entirely new ships in new scales. 

I for one certainly would like to knock of those original AMT kits sooner than later.

(Wish I could go back into that first post and add our own poll!)


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

Thanks for the heads up MM. 

As much as I'd like to see a 1k Reliant or K'tinga, the Galileo is _screaming_ to get remade into something presentable. My fingers remain firmly crossed.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I voted Galileo for same reasons and suggested a more accurate TOS Bridge for the future. But I did request more accurate versions of both ... hence more tooling if possible.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

I voted Galileo as well. I'd personally prefer something a little smaller than 1/32 scale, but I realize I'm in the minority.


----------



## Bobj812 (Jun 15, 2009)

Galileo for me, no question. I would buy an Iron Giant though...


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

I think Gal and Bridge are 1/35? Regardless, maintaining whatever that scale is, is the way (I think) to go and opens more possibilities for that size.

Fact: Gal needs an entirely new sculpt. The Bridge may not though. So, whatever scale the Bridge is, conform new Gal to that to save on retooling the Bridge to match Gal later. But if the Bridge needs a new tool anyway, then a new scale is warranted.

I'd like R2 to codify their Trek lines into distinct scales.
For me it would be:
1/2500 Cadet
1/1000 'Main Fleet' for all screen-seen ships
1/650 OR 1/537 (I like 1/537) For 'Name Ships'.
1/350 Big Boys -Special Releases
1/35 Diorama
1/8th Figures

Why retool the 1/650 1701, D-7, BoP when you could make new TOS in 1/537 to go with the Refit and Reliant? It would put Revell's TOS to shame.

Repop and drop the oddball Cutaway 1701... 

Drop an accurate K-7 in the 1/1000... 

Repop and force Voyager into 1/537. A 1/537 Excelsior would be a beauty that I'd take over a 1/350. But I'd love a 1/350 Reliant, KTinga and D-7. (AW Studios already has a good 1/350 RBoP)

And in the 1/35 scale, I'd like to see them expand into all the TOS sets and a 'Bridge Series' of some major ships would be cool. Who wouldn't like a Transporter, Engineering, or Sickybay in 1/35? Sweeet!


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Be aware that the Galileo in the poll is a 1/32 scale *new tool*.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Opus Penguin said:


> I voted Galileo for same reasons and suggested a more accurate TOS Bridge for the future. But I did request more accurate versions of both ... hence more tooling if possible.


Hey, so did I. And I threw in a refit bridge kit request too! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

fire91bird said:


> Be aware that the Galileo in the poll is a 1/32 scale *new tool*.


OOOooooo, yeah, baby!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

New Galileo for me.

the GK market can handle those other 1K scale subject very well, and have done so already. 

Give me a nice sized, accurate shuttle


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Galileo here.

If I can't finagle a way for the full size mockup to get here, I at least want an accurate model.


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

Model Man said:


> I'd like R2 to codify their Trek lines into distinct scales.
> For me it would be:
> 1/2500 Cadet
> 1/1000 'Main Fleet' for all screen-seen ships
> ...


Awesome, I made the same suggestion about codifying their Trek lines into distinct scales. However, I suggested three: 1:350, 1:1000, and 1:2500. I had not thought of the Galileo or the Runabout, though, so I would definitely add 1:35 to that list. I'm not interested in figures, though, and as far as I'm concerned the 1:537 scale can burn in the vault of eternal destitution.


----------



## fumblethumbs (Jun 26, 2012)

Yep, thanks for the info Tom. I voted Gal too. Something I'd really like to see R2 do is reissue the 1701-D in regular (non-clear) plastic. Of course, include the aztec decals like they did with the clear version.


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

everybody keep voting Galileo


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

I voted for the 1:1000 K'Tinga, although I'd love to see the Reliant or the Iron Giant. I had a hard time choosing between Reliant and Ktinga, but my gut feeling is that given the choice between those to models, the majority would pick the Reliant. So I went with the underdog.  

MM makes a great point about R2 already releasing Reliant and K'Tinga next year, so I can understand the desire to have something different. For me, though, I'm not interested in the 1:2500 scale ships as I prefer models with more detail. In all honesty, given the choices, I'd be happy with any of those, with the one exception being the 1:1000 scale Akira. I simply have NO interest in that ship (and it wouldn't be to scale with any other TNG ships!)


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

GSaum said:


> ...I'd be happy with any of those, with the one exception being the 1:1000 scale Akira. I simply have NO interest in that ship (and it wouldn't be to scale with any other TNG ships!)


Akira is 1/2500, the Cadet series, so it's in line with 1701 C, D, E and the DS9 Defiant later this year.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Voted for the 1/32 Galileo. Also suggested a few things including:

a) New-tool TOS bridge and other sets on the show (i.e. sick-bay, engineering, etc.). 

b) New-tool TOS Enterprise sized somewhere between the 18" and 1/350 Big E (around 22"-24").

c) 1/350 K'tinga.

d) Re-issue the Disney Haunted Mansion/Pirates kits.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

I have an AMT shuttlecraft model in my stash, and I'd need to do a LOT of work to accurize it. I'd love to do a straight build for a change...


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

Chrisisall said:


> I have an AMT shuttlecraft model in my stash, and I'd need to do a LOT of work to accurize it. I'd love to do a straight build for a change...


You do a '_straight_' build Chris? Don't make me *LOL*! It ain't in your nature mate.

I too voted for a decent Galileo in 1:32. 

hal9001-


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

I sense a trend in the voting here. I'll think I'll start clearing shelf space for a new shuttlecraft model...


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

Model Man said:


> Akira is 1/2500, the Cadet series, so it's in line with 1701 C, D, E and the DS9 Defiant later this year.


Ooops, completely misread that! Either way, still not a fan of that design and prefer something else. An accurate Galileo would be a lot of fun, so I'd be up for that or expanding the 1:1000 line. Whatever they choose, I'm sure it will be good. I'm very confident that Round 2 will make us happy with whatever they release, considering their desire for releasing quality products!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Fozzie said:


> Hey, so did I. And I threw in a refit bridge kit request too! :thumbsup:


Actually I suggested the refit bridge too. Great minds think alike.

By the way ... How big would a 1/32 scale Galileo be?


----------



## GunTruck (Feb 27, 2004)

jaws62666 said:


> everybody keep voting Galileo


+1 for Galileo


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Opus Penguin said:


> Actually I suggested the refit bridge too. Great minds think alike.
> 
> By the way ... How big would a 1/32 scale Galileo be?


Same as the old one.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Opus Penguin said:


> By the way ... How big would a 1/32 scale Galileo be?


Oh Boy, here we go again.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

ClubTepes said:


> Oh Boy, here we go again.


Sorry. Don"t mean to sound ignorant. I did not know what the AMT size one was, and am not knowledgable of scales.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, if the old one is 1/35 and the new one would be 1/32, I would think it'd be slightly larger, but not by much.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I'm all in favor of a new-tool Galileo, but then don't we run into another giant issue, the GREAT SET DISCONTINUITY debate? Because we all know that like the Jupiter II, the interior of the shuttle as shown doesn't really fit within the exterior shell.

Anything done will be a compromise. Will that satisfy? There is a huge temptation to fiddle, because the interior, the set, really seems pretty bare and non-functional to today's eyes. 

Still, if they get the overall exterior right I'm sure that's like 98% of the battle and everyone will like that. 

And I would hope for optional position door and view panels.


----------



## shabo451 (Jan 27, 2008)

Also voted for the Galileo. I'd also like the K'tinga and Reliant, but personally would love to get them in 1:350. The repop of the bridge would be welcome, also. 

The idea of a refit bridge would be great, since there would be at least three variations of the Enterprise alone, not to mention a Reliant bridge, Enterprise D battlebridge (1st season), etc....


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

While a new Galileo is pretty much tops on my list, I'd like it to be larger. Not huge, but a good foot in length. The other is just too small to enjoy at that scale (for me.)


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

shabo451 said:


> Also voted for the Galileo. I'd also like the K'tinga and Reliant, but personally would love to get them in 1:350. The repop of the bridge would be welcome, also.
> 
> The idea of a refit bridge would be great, since there would be at least three variations of the Enterprise alone, not to mention a Reliant bridge, Enterprise D battlebridge (1st season), etc....


Yeah,a refit bridge makes a lot of sense from a corporate point of view. They'd be able to package variations with minimal added tooling costs

I wouldn't mind seeing a repop/retool of the original bridge kit. It would be cool if they could a. include all the stations and b. include parts for variations such as Animated Series/Phase II (two turbolifts, pre TMP) and of course the different chair backs for other starships.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Steve H said:


> I'm all in favor of a new-tool Galileo, but then don't we run into another giant issue, the GREAT SET DISCONTINUITY debate? Because we all know that like the Jupiter II, the interior of the shuttle as shown doesn't really fit within the exterior shell.
> 
> Anything done will be a compromise. Will that satisfy? There is a huge temptation to fiddle, because the interior, the set, really seems pretty bare and non-functional to today's eyes.
> 
> ...


I'd suggest taking a look at Warped9's compromise plans of the Class F shuttlecraft, where he strikes a happy medium between the undersized exterior and the oversized interior.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I like the idea of a newly tooled Shuttle, but it's it's a repop, don't bother. I also wouldn't mind a model of the Akira, which would be better as something new, rather than repops or re-tools of previously released models.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Tiberious said:


> While a new Galileo is pretty much tops on my list, I'd like it to be larger. Not hute, but a good foot in length. The other is just too small to enjoy at that scale (for me.)


Rough estimate, a 1:32 scale Galileo should be about 11" long; I don't think you'd miss the extra inch. I'd prefer one roughly the size of the AMT kit because of limited space, but I know the latest trend seems to be "bigger is better". As long as it's accurate, I'll take what I can get.


----------



## BrianM (Dec 3, 1998)

...gotta go with the Galileo. Instead of bridge redo, how about a similar scale Transporter Room!!!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Tiberious said:


> While a new Galileo is pretty much tops on my list, I'd like it to be larger. Not hute, but a good foot in length. The other is just too small to enjoy at that scale (for me.)


Same here. I have Randy Cooper's 1/24 resin kit, and it's just awesome - big enough to detail the heck out of, and not so big that it won't sit on a shelf nicely, or fit into a nice-sized diorama.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Zombie_61 said:


> Rough estimate, a 1:32 scale Galileo should be about 11" long; I don't think you'd miss the extra inch. I'd prefer one roughly the size of the AMT kit because of limited space, but I know the latest trend seems to be "bigger is better". As long as it's accurate, I'll take what I can get.


Unless they go with the 24-foot length, in which case it's only 9" long.
Actually, that's still a pretty decent size.


----------



## ffejG (Aug 27, 2008)

I spoke to Jaime after the presnetation at Wonderfest and made a case for doing the Galileo in 1/24 citing the Moebius LIS Chariot as a comparator. It seemed to press a positive button with him and he said they would have to look at that. But it appears they either decided against it or in the hub-bub of Wonderfest he forgot about it.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

The trick with the Galileo is that, no matter what they do, something is going to be "innaccurate." The miniature, the inside set, and the outside "full size" (not really full size) mockups don't match exactly.

Warped9's work on this remains, in my humble opinion, the best reconciliation of the Galileo I've ever seen, but his version is not identical to any of the above.

So... R2 would be faced with the unenviable task of figuring out what to keep and what to toss. Personally, if it were up to me, I'd have them hire (contractually, as a consultant) Warped9 and use his version, providing a full interior and exterior. But there will inevitably be people who would object to that.

The Galileo is my first choice... but it's not one without pitfalls.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

BrianM said:


> ...gotta go with the Galileo. Instead of bridge redo, how about a similar scale Transporter Room!!!


Years ago I made a Transporter room in the same scale as the bridge kit for a client. I made masters and molded them so I could in theory kit it at any time.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I chose the Galileo shuttlecraft.

1/32 is a little smaller than I'd hoped, but it is not a deal breaker.


----------



## FlyAndFight (Mar 25, 2012)

I've got a feeling the poll is rigged. I'm sure we'll eventually see "all" of the options that were available.

It would have been more interesting if they poll had been left open, allowing one to enter their choice or choices. That way, Round2 would have had a better idea of what exactly their consumers 'really' wanted.

In any case, I voted for the shuttle craft as well. Would be interesting to have it fully lit up, too. Perhaps the decal sheet could include a tattered "red shirt" uniform... 

:tongue:


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I would have liked to make more than one choice but since I had to choose one the Galileo was it.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

If it's the Galileo, I hope the aftermarket figure folks get inspired:



 Commodore Decker screaming in terror in the pilot's seat.
 Lokai at the controls with alternate Starbase 4 decals.
Kirk and Commodore Mendez with alternate Starbase 11 decals.
Kirk, Spock, and Bones with Commissioner Hedford on a cot.
The whole Galileo Seven team, including Latimer with a giant spear thru him.
A giant ape-man hammering the hull with a rock.
The space hippies, including a dead Dr. Sevrin.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

John P said:


> If it's the Galileo, I hope the aftermarket figure folks get inspired:
> 
> 
> Commodore Decker screaming in terror in the pilot's seat.


Yeah one like the attached photos.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

John P said:


> If it's the Galileo, I hope the aftermarket figure folks get inspired:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


how about a "journey to Babel" dio with Sarek, Amanda, honor guard and shuttle bay interior?


----------



## TIEbomber1967 (May 21, 2012)

FlyAndFight said:


> I've got a feeling the poll is rigged. I'm sure we'll eventually see "all" of the options that were available.


I wouldn't say it's rigged, but I do think that all of these will be produced. They are just asking which you'd like to see _first_.
The Reliant, the K'tinga (and from what I'm reading here, the shuttlecraft) are all but guaranteed, so I voted for the 1:2500 Akira in an effort to give it a little bump, and get something *BRAND NEW*! Maybe, just maybe, something that isn't named Enterprise? Hmmm?
While I have been buying the reissues, it's not out of nostalgia for something I built as a kid, it's because I'm kit bashing and want new designs.
Oh well, if the shuttlecraft is the new kit for 2013 because that's what everyone wants, so be it.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

TIEbomber1967 said:


> I wouldn't say it's rigged, but I do think that all of these will be produced. They are just asking which you'd like to see _first_.
> The Reliant, the K'tinga (and from what I'm reading here, the shuttlecraft) are all but guaranteed, so I voted for the 1:2500 Akira in an effort to give it a little bump, and get something *BRAND NEW*! Maybe, just maybe, something that isn't named Enterprise? Hmmm?
> While I have been buying the reissues, it's not out of nostalgia for something I built as a kid, it's because I'm kit bashing and want new designs.
> Oh well, if the shuttlecraft is the new kit for 2013 because that's what everyone wants, so be it.


The drawback for the Akira is that, outside of the hardcore uber-fan community, nobody knows or cares about that ship. I mean, the amount of screen time it's gotten has been... well, inconsequential. Granted, it's the coolest of the new "First Contact" ships, but it's still a background ship, both there and in the very limited post-FC use (mainly DS9).

Me, I'd buy one. And I suspect most of you guys would too. But R2 needs to have more than a few hundred sales of a kit. They need thousands of sales to justify anything.

No, for me, the Akira will always remain a "garage resin kit only" option, unless it someday takes a "starring role" in a film or TV show.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

John P said:


> If it's the Galileo, I hope the aftermarket figure folks get inspired:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Genius!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

John P said:


> If it's the Galileo, I hope the aftermarket figure folks get inspired:
> 
> 
> 
> A giant ape-man hammering the hull with a rock.


Ya know, I'll bet you could convert a cyclops from the LIS kit into one.


----------



## Prologic9 (Dec 4, 2009)

Wow nice to see all the Galileo votes, I voted for it too. I'd love a nice K'tinga model but 1/1000 is far too small for a subject with so much physical detail. At that size you may as well just make decals for the D7.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Well, I voted for Reliant - I'm a bit surprised at the votes for the Galileo. BUT, if Galileo wins, I'll buy one for sure! The only kit I wouldn't buy for sure is the Iron Giant kit. I'm on the fence about the Akira class ship, but I might spring for it (would definitely spring for it if it were in 1/1000). But, there's zero chance that ship will finish first in the poll.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Dr. Brad said:


> Well, I voted for Reliant - I'm a bit surprised at the votes for the Galileo. BUT, if Galileo wins, I'll buy one for sure! The only kit I wouldn't buy for sure is the Iron Giant kit. I'm on the fence about the Akira class ship, but I might spring for it (would definitely spring for it if it were in 1/1000). But, there's zero chance that ship will finish first in the poll.


For me it was a toss-up between the Galileo and Reliant, but Galileo won because I grew up having built the original AMT kit. So it has a place in my heart for me.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Trekkriffic said:


> Ya know, I'll bet you could convert a cyclops from the LIS kit into one.


OOOOO!!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> I'd suggest taking a look at Warped9's compromise plans of the Class F shuttlecraft, where he strikes a happy medium between the undersized exterior and the oversized interior.


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

Great minds think alike. I bought one of those accurzing kits for the Galileo with that n mind but hadnt picked up the cyclops kit. An aftermarket Ape head on the cyclops body and good to hook...


Trekkriffic said:


> Ya know, I'll bet you could convert a cyclops from the LIS kit into one.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Honestly, I don't take the dimensions of the "full sized" prop as gospel any more than I think real PT boats were as small as McHale's PT 73 (it was a half-sized model of a real Vosper). It's perfectly acceptable to me if the model is scaled so the interior makes sense, and the exterior is a little larger (to scale) than the prop.

Yeah, yeah, Kirk said "24 feet" on screen. What the heck, maybe he meant the interior living space, not the overall length.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

John P said:


> Honestly, I don't take the dimensions of the "full sized" prop as gospel any more than I think real PT boats were as small as McHale's PT 73 (it was a half-sized model of a real Vosper). It's perfectly acceptable to me if the model is scaled so the interior makes sense, and the exterior is a little larger (to scale) than the prop.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, Kirk said "24 feet" on screen. What the heck, maybe he meant the interior living space, not the overall length.


That's sort of the trick... there are too many "inconsistent" bits that we each can come to different conclusions as to what the "real" thing really is.

There's little doubt in my mind, personally, that the interior set was oversized... remember, the cameras and equipment they were using were pretty large and bulky. Today, you could get by with a smaller set. Also, note that the way that the actors behave inside doesn't infer a large interior... it infers that they're trying to make us think it's small and cramped.

At the same time, we know that the exterior "prop" was undersized, pretty dramatically.

The real issues in determining the size of the shuttle, ON ITS OWN, are (again, IMHO) irreconcilable. But at some point, you have to mesh this shuttle into the starship ,and that's where the issue gets resolved as far as I'm concerned.

I used Ray's lines and scaling, which I believe is the ideal compromise, when fitting shuttles into my CAD-based Enterprise. Recall that I upscaled my Enterprise slightly as well, above the "accepted" 947' length... my Enterprise is 1067' in length... in other words, I've arrived at 125% of accepted "full scale" as the "correct" scale.

At that scale, I was able to match up on-screen on-board-ship sets perfectly to the exterior, including deck-heights matching up with window levels. I was able to get a full 11 decks into the primary hull at "on-screen" sizes. I was able to put the familiar, on-screen corridor set into the majority of the primary hull decks without any modification.

And I was able to very nicely tuck Ray's shuttlecraft into the landing bay setpiece and have it look identically to what we saw on-screen... literally identical, as in "tweak the virtual camera characteristics and match everything up to what we saw on-screen."

I even found that I could tuck two of the four shuttlecraft carried by a Constitution-class into the "nooks" underneath the engine pylons (which I had penetrating to the center of the secondary hull, where the "keel" is in my version).

Had I used one of the larger versions which have been put out there, I could not have done any of this except by making the Enterprise significantly larger than I did.

Interestingly, I believe Ray's shuttlecraft BODY is nearly exactly 24' in length, though the engine nacelles add a small amount on top of that. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is consistent with Kirk's in-episode line.

So... for me, the "Warped9 Class F shuttlecraft" layout is the benchmark, to date, for this craft.

(And no, I'm not receiving a stipend for saying so!) :dude:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

My version/design comes out to a shade over 25'-5.5" in overall length. If you remove the nacelles and the aft landing strut and pad you're left with a main hull that's near exactly 24ft. in length. I wasn't aiming for that---it just happened by chance. Originally my overall length was about 26ft. (which I was happy with), but when I fiddled with the aft landing strut angle and the landing pad design lost a bit less than an inch and a half in overall length.

One could certainly up the scale of the exterior, but then you start running into two problems. The overall size of the craft starts getting unwieldy to accommodate within the confines of the ship's flight deck and hangar facilities, even a 1067ft. ship. The other problem was the "step up" height from the deck/ground onto the cutout step of the port nacelle as well as the step up height to the lowered hatch gangway. The bigger the craft, while maintaining all the same proportions, the more awkward the step up height.

The interior was also a compromise. I wanted to avoid a too cramped interior that couldn't possibly be believable for a vehicle supposedly capable of accommodating personnel from hours to several days on end. But, of course, it wasn't workable to accommodate the full-size interior seen onscreen because I would then need a larger exterior and run into the problems I stated above.

My compromise was to have an interior where someone up to 5'-7" could stand upright inside while anyone taller would have to stoop some. And I got the idea for this from what we see right onscreen.

1. We know the exterior mockup is undersized as a production compromise.
2. We know the interior set is oversized as a production compromise. There were two clues to this (or at least how I interpreted what I saw). 

*Firstly, why were the chairs and control consoles set so low to the deck?* When seated the actors looked like they didn't know what to do with their legs. For a full-size interior the chairs should have allowed the cast to sit a bit higher off the deck in a more natural seating position. *Secondly, why do the actors make a point of walking around the set a bit stooped over when it's clear even Nimoy (at about 6' something) can clearly stand upright in it?* There's clearly enough ceiling height so what's the point of the cast stooping inside?

I interpreted those clues as them trying to suggest a smaller interior than what we actually saw. This allowed me to reach a compromise between the undersized exterior and the oversized interior while maintaining the overall look of what we saw. The size of the chairs and consoles and fittings could remain the same while just tightening up the interior some in length and height. I was also able to maintain the cabin width we saw onscreen.

Another compromise was the angle of the forward bulkhead seen onscreen doesn't match the angle of the exterior hull on the exterior mockup. I couldn't match the two without radically changing the appearance of the exterior or the interior. Also I couldn't make the interior cabin width match that of the exterior mockup without making the exterior too narrow or the interior too wide. So to keep everything looking as it's supposed to look I settled on the idea of a double hull structure for the craft. This not only keeps everything looking as it should, but also makes sense for a spacecraft, particularly one of _Star Trek's _design sense where all of the ship's guts and mechanicals are out of sight. It also answered another onscreen question in "The Galileo Seven." _Where were they getting all that equipment and stuff to jettison to lighten the ship's load?_

I don't pretend my solution is the definitive one. Only Matt Jefferies or some newly discovered archival materiel could settle that. But this was the best I could manage after wrestling with this idea for more years than I care to remember.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

LOVE your drawings man!!! Awesome.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

I'd be very happy with a 'Warped9' version!


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> I don't pretend my solution is the definitive one. Only Matt Jefferies or some newly discovered archival materiel could settle that. But this was the best I could manage after wrestling with this idea for more years than I care to remember.


What you came up with is so carefully thought out and so reasonable that I have always considered it to be the definitive work on this craft. Thanks for what you've given to the _Trek _universe. OUTSTANDING JOB! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I appreciate the compliments. It should be noted that what I did with this design is somewhat similar to what R2 is doing with the 1/350 TOS _E_ kit. Their intent is to make a kit of the *starship* _Enterprise_ and not a simple (relatively) recreation of the 11ft. filming miniature. In like manner my goal was to render an integrated "real" shuttlecraft rather than reproduce the filming mockups. To that end I tried to correct what I saw as production/construction compromises. The full-size exterior was distinctly "nose down" in orientation to the point the bow looked front heavy to the point of sagging. I corrected this by aligning the lower edge of the stabilizer rim (that runs around the bow and both sides of the craft) parallel to the warp nacelles. I also smoothened the rim to make a continuous taper from aft to bow whereas the filming mockup had a distinct kink in it just aft of the hatchway. The sloping forward hull of the mockup was constructed as three angled panels (each with a window) whereas I made the sloping hull curve to match the leading edge of the bow and lower hull.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> It should be noted that what I did with this design is somewhat similar to what R2 is doing with the 1/350 TOS _E_ kit. Their intent is to make a kit of the *starship* _Enterprise_ and not a simple (relatively) recreation of the 11ft. filming miniature. In like manner my goal was to render an integrated "real" shuttlecraft rather than reproduce the filming mockups. To that end I tried to correct what I saw as production/construction compromises.


Since the intent is to "make work" what we saw on the screen in a single model (whereas they used a model and a set), I think this is right approach to take and I'm glad that you (and Round 2) took that approach.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Warped9 said:


> I appreciate the compliments.


Actually, we were restraining ourselves so that comments on your *peerless, professional & positively awesome work* on this subject don't damage your humility.:thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well, it isn't likely that R2 will come knocking on my door to use my drawings. They likely have better resources available.

At any rate my main sources were Phil Broad's construction style drawings on cloudster.com and the original _Star Trek_ episodes that featured the shuttlecraft. Additionally I had immeasurable help from many insightful members both here and in the Arts forum of the TrekBBS. While I had a clear focus in mind for the end result a lot of intelligent insight helped me refine my approach. I started with a 32ft. shuttlecraft then revised it to 28ft. before finally settling on a vehicle just under 26ft.

Here's a little something. If you peeled away the port side exterior hull you'd then see...the inner hull. This is what the inner hull or lifeshell would look like in place.










If anyone is interested in how all this got started then go here. There's a lot of interesting reading there as well as the companion threads.


This remains one of favourite photomanips. Interesting that when I enlarged the craft in this image I was almost bang on with the size my shuttlecraft ended up being in my drawings.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I agree with the others here. Warped9's "real" shuttle blueprints exceed even his usual high standard of work. It is the best harmonized design I've ever seen and would make a fine guide for the model. 

Whatever they do, I feel it is essential that they make the nacelles parallel with the center equatorial ridge. The sagging profile of the large scale mockup is just that: Sagging. It beggars belief that it was designed that way. Certainly the interior floor, equatorial ridge/wings, and nacelles were all in parallel planes.

Here's hoping the Galileo wins the poll!

M.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

Trekkriffic said:


> Ya know, I'll bet you could convert a cyclops from the LIS kit into one.


Or "The Mighty Kogar" kit that is coming from Moebius.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

My first choice for a kit would be a 1/24 or 1/32 scale TOS Shuttlecraft (with or without interior) including alternate markings for other Enterprise shuttlecraft. A companion kit could be crew figures in the same scale (although this could be done by a third party).

I also wouldn't mind seeing another large kit even though unlikely: a 1/350 scale Klingon D7. That would _rock!_

A properly revised/new TOS Romulan Bird of Prey.

And since we're dreaming:
- A new TOS Bridge with alternate parts for a Pike era version.
- A TMP refit Bridge.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

MGagen said:


> Whatever they do, I feel it is essential that they make the nacelles parallel with the center equatorial ridge. The sagging profile of the large scale mockup is just that: Sagging. It beggars belief that it was designed that way. Certainly the interior floor, equatorial ridge/wings, and nacelles were all in parallel planes.


Something for the restoration team working on the full size mockup to consider, perhaps?


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

O.K., silly question time. Can Warped9s' *Shuttle Blue Prints* be purchased? If so, where?

End of silly questions.

Thanks,
hal9001-


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

hal9001 said:


> O.K., silly question time. Can Warped9s' *Shuttle Blue Prints* be purchased? If so, where?
> 
> End of silly questions.
> 
> ...


Candidly, as this project dragged (interference of real life) I never did settle on how I would share these. My initial thought was to make them available as a download after which the individual could have them printed out in either 8x11 or 11x17 sheets. I've printed out samples in 11x17 and they look nice in that size---not really surprising since that is the size I originally intended. On 11x17 sheets the drawings are in 1/24 scale from which a resourceful modeller could build a 1/24 scratch build of the ship (which would come out to be just under 13in. in length). If one printed the sheets out in 17x22 you'd then have 1/12 scale drawings and your scratch build would be just under 26in. long. Note that at 1/12 you'd have a quite sizeable model because of the ship's boxy shape. 

For myself I planned to build a 1/18 scale scratch build which I thought would be a decent compromise. For this purpose I'd print out the drawings myself (rather than using a local print shop for the finished sheets) in a more simplified form just to give me the 1:1 measurements and patterns.



















Note, if you want to see larger images of some of the drawings (the exterior views) go here on Phil Broad's cloudster site.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

I've been waiting for you to do just that....I'd love to construct a 13" version of the shuttle.


----------

