# 22" TOS Enterprise Cut-Away question



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Has anyone here done the AMT 22" cutaway model? I've seen some pretty impressive pictures of it on Cultman.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

Removed by Author.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

kenlee said:


> Other than the shape of the B,C deck, it is a fairly good model. I don't understand how at the time that model was created they got that shape so wrong.


Most models seem to have a weak area. The 22" AMT refit has a terrible sensor array.
Artistic blind spots? A rush to production?


----------



## Gary7 (Jan 2, 2013)

Chrisisall said:


> Has anyone here done the AMT 22" cutaway model? I've seen some pretty impressive pictures of it on Cultman.


I actually have one I've had for years. I had planned to start on it a year ago, then I got wind that the 1:350 kit was finally coming and put it on hold. I had the Art Asylum model to hold me over until it arrived.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Gary7 said:


> I had the Art Asylum model to hold me over until it arrived.


Yeah, I have one too...


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I have one on the bench right now.

You NEED DLM's correction kit to fix most (but not all) of the errors in the kit. And I personally have found that getting the split saucer together properly to be a PITA.....

Some of the uncorrectable errors: dorsal shape, secondary hull deflector ring cap.

For what you get, it's a not a bad model to start from, but out of box... not so much.


----------



## spawndude (Nov 28, 2007)

I too am currently building the cutaway.

I've found very few references where this has been displayed in its cutaway version. Most of the references show it all sealed up.

I have plenty of other Enterprise models so I am building and will display this as a cutaway. I'm not even going to build or paint the port side of the kit. I will be using a poster of the Enterprise shown in cross section to use as a painting guide.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Chrisisall said:


> Most models seem to have a weak area. The 22" AMT refit has a terrible sensor array.
> Artistic blind spots? A rush to production?


I've never actually seen this kit. What's wrong with it?


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Warped9 said:


> I've never actually seen this kit. What's wrong with it?


Some details. It's a step up from the AMT original '68 kit. Creative fabrication will accurize it. If I win one. If not, I still have my 1/1000 PL to do.


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

The 22 inch AMT TOS Enterprise kit can be turned into a pretty decent Enterprise. It just takes a little help from DLM aftermarket parts and after market decals. Oh and a LOT of puttying and sanding! 

Here's mine from a while back. 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=344971


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Well done!


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

I have one of these from ages ago that I never got to building. I wanted to do it sealed-up since it was at least more accurate looking than the AMT 18" kit. I tried to look it over for as many glaring flaws as I could find.

What is wrong with it? Where to begin....

As mentioned, the dorsal is the wrong shape/angle, and there is 1 too many rings behind the sensor dish.
The DLM parts will help with some of the worst-offending inaccuracies (some of the resin pieces have to be shaved a bit as they are too thick in some cases), but there are many more to address.
The angle of the edge of the saucer is not acute enough.
The pylons insert into the nacelles at the wrong point.
The fantail of the hanger area should be lower.
The windows are all in the wrong places, and the three rings on the bottom of the saucer need to be scribed.
The edge of the underside of the saucer where it curves up and then inward down to the planetary sensor is too sharp and needs to be softened.
The bottom bracket-thing around the front sensor assembly is not indented like the two on the sides.
The secondary hull from the dorsal to the front sensor is too short and needs to be lengthened.

There's probably more, but it's been a while since I looked at it... :freak:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

J_Indy said:


> The pylons insert into the nacelles at the wrong point.


NO WAY! Really?? 
I hope I lose....


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> The edge of the underside of the saucer where it curves up and then inward down to the planetary sensor is too sharp and needs to be softened.


Didn't that odd shape come from the "three footer"?

EDIT: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/SG-Q0ryDDdI/AAAAAAAABnY/iSJFiAdkqB4/s1600/P52_5_3footmodel.jpg


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

I'm working from memory, but those are the things I recall....

Also, the "linear accelerator" on top of the saucer is all wrong.

The sharp edge on the underside of the saucer would be ok following the 3-ft model - if they had made the bottom of the saucer flat like in the 3-ft model.

As it is, they were shooting for the production version, so it looks out of place.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

J_Indy said:


> The sharp edge on the underside of the saucer would be ok following the 3-ft model - if they had made the bottom of the saucer flat like in the 3-ft model.
> 
> As it is, they were shooting for the production version, so it looks out of place.


Maybe it's an artistic combo... ?


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Chrisisall said:


> Maybe it's an artistic combo... ?


I guess it could be looked at that way.

Though maybe all the "inaccuracies" with it can sort of use that umbrella too...


----------



## clactonite (Dec 16, 2006)

Here's a build up i did years ago:

http://www.resinilluminati.com/showthread.php?p=97480#post97480


----------



## clactonite (Dec 16, 2006)

And the finished outcome.

http://www.resinilluminati.com/showthread.php?p=91489#post91489

Well worth the pain, as it taught me a lot about building!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

clactonite said:


> And the finished outcome.
> 
> http://www.resinilluminati.com/showthread.php?p=91489#post91489
> 
> Well worth the pain, as it taught me a lot about building!


You made a silk purse out of a sow's ear!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

clactonite said:


> And the finished outcome.
> 
> http://www.resinilluminati.com/showthread.php?p=91489#post91489
> 
> Well worth the pain, as it taught me a lot about building!


Awe here.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

I have a build up of that kit...a lot of work...a lot of work. When it was the only game in town, it was well worth it.

Chris, I have seen your work my friend. Excellent. If you can swing it...*GET* the Polar Lights 1/350 Enterprise.

Just my humble opinion


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Captain Han Solo said:


> If you can swing it...*GET* the Polar Lights 1/350 Enterprise.


If I could financially pull it off, I'd have to, like, build micro interiours behind the windows & s**t... :freak:
A year long project...


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Oh yeah - and the nacelle front-end with the domes - it needs to be a bit longer (or the dark rings that separate the front end-cap from the rest of the nacelle need to be moved back a bit - however you want to look at it.) :drunk:

Gotta hand it to people who tackled that beast and made it presentable, because it looks like tons of work... :thumbsup:

And just for clarification - I seem to remember the engines need to sit higher, which is what I meant when I said the pylons enter at the wrong place. Although the pylons are fine coming up from the 2ndary hull, they enter the engines off by a few degrees. (Right now the box is buried somewhere under a ton of stuff or I'd drag it out to look it over again...)


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

I was outbid... gonna let 'im have it. 1/350 or nuttin'.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Chrisisall said:


> I was outbid... gonna let 'im have it. 1/350 or nuttin'.


You got lucky. The winner lost.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

J_Indy said:


> You got lucky. The winner lost.


LOL, maybe, I like the scale, just not the work involved to accurize it. But more power to the modeler willing!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

A little late to the party but here is my build:




-Jim


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Jim, that's nice lighting, I wish I could see the actual SHIP though.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Now I remember - not only is the neck of the ship misshapen, it is too short also.

The pylons enter the nacelles at a point that makes them the right height to the saucer on the shortened neck. If you correct the neck height, you have to move the insertion point lower on the nacelle so the engines sit higher and look right in relation to the saucer.

No wonder that thing is still in a box somewhere....


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Chrisisall said:


> Jim, that's nice lighting, I wish I could see the actual SHIP though.


My favorite pic is this one:








More can be seen starting here"
http://s377.photobucket.com/user/JGG1701/media/paint2.jpg.html?sort=6&o=198
-Jim


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Whoah, Jim!!! MOST impressive!! Indeed your modeling skills ARE powerfull as the Emperor of Models has forseen!
Seriously- peerless work! Seamless, in fact!


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Chrisisall said:


> Whoah, Jim!!! MOST impressive!! Indeed your modeling skills ARE powerfull as the Emperor of Models has forseen!
> Seriously- peerless work! Seamless, in fact!


Thank you.
-Jim


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

I have 2 of them and am going to turn one in to a Kelvin style ship.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

onigiri said:


> I have 2 of them and am going to turn one in to a Kelvin style ship.


Surely NOT!

:tongue:


----------

