# What was the length of the production TOS Enterprise in inches?



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

I'm not talking "about 11 feet" etc, etc.

But the most accurate known measurements of it in inches.
One source, a very very old poster book #10 puts it at 134 inches but that length is suspect.

I'm asking because I've found a VERY precise measurement of the Botany Bay model.

If I can get an exact measurement of the TOS Enterprise in inches I can figure out it's real world scale(however oddball that scale may be). 947" divided by ___ inches.

Then I can take the real world Botany Bay measurements in inches and multiply it by that scale to get the Botany Bay's "real world" measurements.

I can then divide it to get an accurate(in fact, canon) size at both 1/1000th scale and 1/350th scale.

Simple, huh?


----------



## EuphoniumGuy (Jun 12, 2005)

The IDIC site lists the original miniatures length at 134". I'm pretty sure that accurate as it's a very reliable site.


----------



## loneranger (Sep 5, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I'm not talking "about 11 feet" etc, etc.
> 
> But the most accurate known measurements of it in inches.
> One source, a very very old poster book #10 puts it at 134 inches but that length is suspect.
> ...


 The "real" Enterprise was supposedly 947 feet in length (not 947 inches, which would only be about 79 feet). This would make the measurement 11,364 inches, divided by 134, gives a scale of approximately 84.9:1 (or 1/85th scale).

Yep, it's oddball, all right.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I prefer 1/96th scale for the TOS production.


----------



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

I was just asking for the length in inches in order to get the right scale.


I'm assuming you are probably referring to the following I posted in 4MadMen's thread? If so I agree that the 1/96th scale for the TOS model makes way more sense. It is just a matter of whether or not ya' wanna pee into the wind as far as the "canon" length of the ship. So for boths sides I listed both sets of measurements.:


_*Okay, I've got some scaling numbers some may or may not like.*_

_*First let me say that these numbers are from Phil Broad's blueprints of a "real-world" Botany Bay.*_

_*He based these on some very exacting measurements taken directly from the TOS filming model of the BBay.*_

_*The only bone of contention here is that Phil believes the Enterprise, and thereby the BBay by extension, to be 1/96th scale models. Which would put the "real world" Enterprise at about 1072 vs 947 feet.*_

_*His reasoning being that it's unlikely that the model builders would use a scale of 1/84.8th.*_

_*Pretty convincing argument, but the length of 947 has been used so often as to be very widely accepted. Please let's not get into a long canon debate over this.*_

_*I don't point this out to criticize anyone's point of view, but simply to explain that to make the measurements of the Botany Bay canon, I had to figure out the BBay filming miniature's length by dividing Phil's incredible blueprint measurements by 96. (Phil doesn't state the model's length directly.)*_

_*The filming model of the BBay therefore comes out to be right at 45.9"*_
_*(4406.80851063829787234042553191484 inches divided by 96)*_

_*BBay's Original filming model length = 45.904255319148936170212765957438*_

_*I then calculated the TOS E's scale as closely as possible using the 947 foot length, "real world" measurement and dividing that(in inches) by 134.*_

_*To get an admittedly lame scale of 1/1.848th scale.*_

_*TOS E's original scale assuming 947 foot length = 1/84.805970149253731343283582089552*_

_*Then I multiplied the BBay filming miniatures' length in inches by 84.8059701492 yada, yada, yada.*_

_*Which gave me a TOS relative real world length of the BBAy's in inches to be 3892.9549063194664973007303905987*_

_*BBay's "Real world" length would be 324.4129088599 feet(Using TOS E's scaling factor)*_

_*Therefore:*_

_*At 1/350th the BBay would be 11.122728 inches long*_

_*At 1/1000th the BBay would be 3.892954 inches long*_

_*Let me know if I screwed up the calculations anywhere. *_


_*N.B. If Phil is right that the TOS Enterprise was built as a 1/96th scale model then the BBay's length "real world" length would be 367.234 feet or 4406.8085 inches.*_

_*Making a 1/350th scale model 12.59 inches long.*_
_*and a 1/1000th scale model 4.4068 inches long.*_


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

If it were 971.5 ft, it could be HO 1/87 scale. :thumbsup: 

I know there's already been a big debate over this, but what official source does the 947' measurement come from? The only place I've ever seen it was the little drawings in my old 1970's copy of The Making of Star Trek.


----------



## EuphoniumGuy (Jun 12, 2005)

For the record the Star Trek Encyclopedia lists the length of the TOS Enterprise as 289 meters, which converts to 948.1627297 feet. Very close to the 947' measurement.

I'm assuming a measurement from the encyclopedia is as canon as any measurement's gonna get. If not, then there it is anyways.


----------



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

If I remember correctly(and I may not) I believe in a particular episode there was, for just a moment, a blueprint flashed on a main screen showing a Top view shot of the the Constitution class and Klingon D-7 right next to one another with the measurements of each in feet. I believe it was the same graphic that for years appeared on the sides of the AMT Trek boxes in yellow.


----------



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

Here's the info from member Roosterfish:

"But they were side by side. In the episode of 'Enterprise Incident' Kirks shows the viewscreen drawing of the two ships next to each other with a scale marking next to the ships. The pictures were negatives from the book, "The Making Of Star Trek" by Stephen E. Whitfield."

...from an old VERY "spirited" thread that I won't link out to...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

This one's right up my alley. I've spend entirely too much time puzzling out these very issues and I can give you a couple of definitive figures.

First off, Matt Jefferies blueprinted the model as 33.75" in length. This is the size the lost "3-footer" presumably was, since it was built directly from this blueprint. The source of this info is Richard Datin, who personally built the "3-footer" and still has the plans.

The "11-footer" was built from the same plans and scaled up exactly 4X. This means it was intended to be exactly 135" in length. 

During the most recent restoration, Gary Kerr was able to take direct measurements and tracings of the various components when they were disassembled. He later modeled the components in AutoCad and digitally reassembled them. There was no time to make the kind of jigs necessary to take a direct length measurement of the assembled model, so our best figure comes from this CAD reconstruction. Rich Sternbach contacted Kerr at the request of some of us who were discussing the issue online and he passed on Gary's L.O.A. figure -- 134.08161". This is the best available measurement we have for the model as built. 

That brings us to another point: Scale. I would submit any attempt to figure the scale that the model was built at should be based on the intended 135" figure, since it is unlikely Jefferies or anyone else involved with the show would have known the model was about an inch short. They would have naturally assumed that it was 135" as called for on the plans. That being said, the model works out to 1:84.17778 scale. (If you wish to go by the model as it actually turned out, it is 1:84.75435 or 1:84.75 scale.) 

You may ask (as I did): why would Matt Jefferies, who was a very competent and methodical man, pick such a whacked-out and unworkable scale to build the Enterprise in. The answer is simple: He didn't. Through a long, drawn out investigation that I've detailed elsewhere (and which I'm currently documenting for a new website) I was able to determine that Jefferies originally planned and drafted the Enterprise to be 540 feet in length. This would have made the "eleven footer" a very sensible 1:48 scale (or 1/4" = 1 foot). Only after the drawings were approved was the decision taken to enlarge the size of the ship. 

At that point there was no sense in redrafting the plans. All that was necessary was a little mathematical sleight of hand to change what those plans represented. Why they didn't just double the size, making the ship 1,080 feet in length and the "eleven footer" a 1:96 scale model we may never know. 

As an aside, I was once convinced of the 1:96 scale theory and even corresponded with Phil Broad at length about it. I was forced to this conclusion because I couldn't believe Jefferies would design in an unreasonable scale. But this was _before_ I found the evidence that he designed it in another scale entirely, and that the rescale was decided upon after the thing was already blueprinted. I was also spurred on by the apparent fact that the dimensional callouts on the famous 3-view drawing didn't match the proportions of the drawing itself. This seemed to cast doubt on their reliability. It was as if someone had come along after MJ had made the drawing and inserted the figures from the Writers' Guide on it even though they didn't match. This turned out not to be the case. I have since come into possession of a scan of the original artboard and can say that the problem is that the drawing we've all seen is reproduced very poorly with a surprising amount of distortion. When seen in its original form, the callouts match very well. The ship is meant to be 947 feet in length.

Back to the re-scale: Since the hard work was already done (drafting the plans) the only real burden was to recalculate the window spacing on the model. Interestingly, the original plans did not have the windows marked on them. According to Datin, these were added later, in pencil, while the plans were at his shop. Perhaps the awkward math involved may explain why a few of the window levels are too close together on the saucer rim and the dorsal pylon.

I hope this helps. I'm also curious to know the "VERY precise measurement" of the Botany Bay model and its source. In case you haven't noticed, I'm a real geek about that sort of thing...

Mark


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

In the digging I've done, I concur with Mr. Gagen. The main problematical bit of the dimensions of the shooting model is the primary hull; it's not quite circular (most likely a manufacturing problem, since vacuforming a five-foot diameter saucer has got to be a pain the tuckus, no matter what facilities you have at your disposal), so the best that can be determined is an estimate. Granted, 134.08161" is a pretty close estimation, but this is Star Trek we're talking about. Spock would be proud (provided Vulcans experience pride, that is...  )

There's also an issue with the nacelles being neither parallel nor of the same length, but that can be worked around (one of them has to be right, and the position when it _is_ straight can be determined, so go with that one and run with it; I'm betting on the starboard one).


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Here's the info from member Roosterfish:
> 
> "But they were side by side. In the episode of 'Enterprise Incident' Kirks shows the viewscreen drawing of the two ships next to each other with a scale marking next to the ships. The pictures were negatives from the book, "The Making Of Star Trek" by Stephen E. Whitfield."
> 
> ...from an old VERY "spirited" thread that I won't link out to...


That particular drawing doesn't have any size notations (just a scale). Only the three-view drawing of the Enterprise has the 947' notation, and that, to my knowledge, has never appeared on screen.


----------



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

All that being accepted,

can any of you find fault in the way I came to my Botany Bay Calculations?

I have listed both series(real world, 1/350th, 1/1000) of possible Botany Bay lengths, based on whether the TOS E was built at 1/84.085th scale and also if it was built at 1/96th scale.

Any error in my process/logic that anyone can see?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

My head hurts...


----------



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

Nova Designs said:


> My head hurts...


basically, the filming model of the Botany Bay was 45.9" inches.

If the TOS E at 134" was a 1/84.x scale (the often used 947 foot measurement) model you would multiply the 45.9" by 84.x to get the Botany Bay "real world" length.

If the TOS E at 134" was a 1/96th scale you would multiply the 45.9" by 96 to get the Botany Bay "real world" length.

Then to get the scale lengths simply divide.

The only question is whether one chooses the 1/84.x scale or 1/96th scale.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

As far as the Botany Bay goes, I'd just worry about scaling it with the shooting model, since that's the only part of the equation that we can point to with any degree of actual certainty.

The Enterprise, for the sake of argument, we'll call 135", while the Botany Bay was just shy of 46".

I get a figure of 15.67" for a BB model of the proper size.

How that translates for "real world" size, that's the question, depending on how loyal we want to be to the 947' figure for the Enterprise. I think we're pretty much stuck with it, but if current orthadoxy could actually be made to accept Phil's figure of 1047', we'd get some interesting side effects.

One, my life would get easier with regard to my attempted deck plans, since I'd now have more room inside that hull to work with, particularly with regard to the placement of the bridge.

Two, we'd be back with the notion that the Enterprise was larger _before_ the refit.

This could be fun.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

*** Brain Shutting Down ***

You have 12 minutes to reach minimum safe distance.


----------



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

Captain April said:


> As far as the Botany Bay goes, I'd just worry about scaling it with the shooting model, since that's the only part of the equation that we can point to with any degree of actual certainty.
> 
> The Enterprise, for the sake of argument, we'll call 135", while the Botany Bay was just shy of 46".
> 
> ...


Ummm... huh? 

I appreciate the insight and contribution, Captain April, but what does "I get a figure of 15.67" for a BB model of the proper size" mean?

I also don't understand the problem with scaling it with the shooting models.

They were shown almost hull-to-hull onscreen. In fact, if you think about it the BBay in a couple of shots has a good portion of the ship under and within the starboard nacelle in terms of depth of field in the shot.

It seems to me like the BBay is probably one of the few(maybe even the only) TOS ships that you can fairly reliably scale based on it's size relative to the Enterprise.

I do understand the contraversy of the 947 vs 1072 length, 
but what exactly is the problem with scaling the BBay relative to the Enterprise?

Am I missing something?

Aridas Sofia, Thomas, MGagen, Phil, anybody here that can shed some light on this and/or perhaps explain what I'm missing by relating the two models' sizes together for scaling please edjumicate me on my mistake.

It won't be the first time I've been wrong, I promise not to take it personally.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Well, since the length was never established on screen, I'm going with 1/96th scale with a length of 1072 feet. 

BTW: Great calculations, Chuck! Thanks for getting that straight! :thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

For me it doesn't really matter about "real world" sizes. I have what can be termed accurate lengths for both filming models. So when the time comes to add some scale establishing details I have the details on the Enterprise to draw from.


----------



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

And, if my logic isn't screwed up, we now have a way to figure that scale out, depending on if you choose to go with the 947 foot or 1072 foot length.

I'd admit their might be a problem using the filming miniature length had they not filmed the BBay model sort of directly between the overhanging starboard nacelle and secondary hull, but since they did, I don't see a problem using it's size relative to the TOS E's.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I suppose but the ending figure of "The BB is x feet long" is largely irrelevant. If I need to add a window (which is up in the air at the moment) to the BB I can take an Enterprise winodw as a starting point without really knowing how bit the window is in "real world" terms.


----------



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

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Well, since the length was never established on screen, I'm going with 1/96th scale with a length of 1072 feet.
> 
> BTW: Great calculations, Chuck! Thanks for getting that straight! :thumbsup:


Thanks. I *think* the calculations are solid, but if there is some error in them I'm sure someone like Aridas or Thomas will catch it and correct them and/or make them even more accurate.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> I suppose but the ending figure of "The BB is x feet long" is largely irrelevant. If I need to add a window (which is up in the air at the moment) to the BB I can take an Enterprise winodw as a starting point without really knowing how bit the window is in "real world" terms.


Danger Will Robinson!!!

Enterprise windows in terms of size they represent, deck layouts, etc., aren't very liable for scaling purposes due to the number of scale revisions the Enterprise went through and the way they "slapped on" extra rows of windows at the last second to the Production TOS E.

MGagen would be much more qualified to speak on this subject then I however, based on what he's written on the subject elsewhere.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And that's OK too. Enterprises' windows are there (whatever size they represent) so as a general point of comparison are perfectly legitimate as the basis for what a BB window might be. Besides I probably won't be doing any windows on the BB. At least not like you'd see on a ship like Enterprise. Bringing up the windows was just a quick way of explaining what I was talking about.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Besides must everything be scale perfect? Can't the act of building stand on it's own?


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> I suppose but the ending figure of "The BB is x feet long" is largely irrelevant.


Yes and no.

By multiplying the model's length in inches by either the 84.x scale or 96th scale you get the real world length in inches.

Obviously no one is going to build a 1:1 Botany Bay.

However, once you have the "real world" length in inches you just divide it by any number you want to get that scale size. divided by 350 for 1/350th, divided by 1000 for 1/1000th, divided by 24 for 1/24th, etc.

The real world length in inches is important if you want to get an accurate scale measurement.

Unless of course, you plan to build a 134" TOS E and a 45.9" Botany Bay.

In that case, no conversion needed! :tongue:

You may, however, need a new home in which to place them and yourself once the wife sees them!


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

FWIW I'm convinced *Mark* has this figured out. My first goal would be to determine what *Jefferies* intended, and I think evidence strongly indicates there was an original 540' design that was expanded to a 947' length derived from a 135" plan and a ~134" model. Whether it makes sense or not is irrelevant. To change it now adds another kink in the works and would make it that much harder to figure out what was intended later. Better to live with the fact that there were unspecified, unrecorded discussions that led to an odd scale and not exactly doubling the 540' design.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Besides must everything be scale perfect? Can't the act of building stand on it's own?


Net!!! Everything must be precisely as it should be!!! 

*You 3D people must learn discipline!!! *:tongue:

Where is that Srg. Shultz when you need him!?!


----------



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

aridas sofia said:


> FWIW I'm convinced *Mark* has this figured out. My first goal would be to determine what *Jefferies* intended, and I think evidence strongly indicates there was an original 540' design that was expanded to a 947' length derived from a 135" plan and a ~134" model. Whether it makes sense or not is irrelevant. To change it now adds another kink in the works and would make it that much harder to figure out what was intended later. Better to live with the fact that there were unspecified, unrecorded discussions that led to an odd scale and not exactly doubling the 540' design.


I tend to agree with that, so are my calculations correct?

The way they are achieved I mean, not whether one chooses finally to go with the 947 or 1072 foot Enterprise length.


----------



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

Captain April said:


> As far as the Botany Bay goes, I'd just worry about scaling it with the shooting model, since that's the only part of the equation that we can point to with any degree of actual certainty.
> 
> The Enterprise, for the sake of argument, we'll call 135", while the Botany Bay was just shy of 46".
> 
> I get a figure of 15.67" for a BB model of the proper size.


Perhaps I should have concentrated on just this question earlier, Captain April. How did you come up with the figure of 15.67," what do you mean by "proper size?"

I don't understand how you arrived at the number of 15.67" or what scale it is supposed to represent. 


If both models were keyed in scale to an Enterprise size of 947 feet I get the following for the Botany Bay:

*BBay's "real world" length would be 324.4129 feet(3892.9549 inches)*

*Therefore:*

*At 1/350th the BBay would be 11.122728 inches long*

*At 1/1000th the BBay would be 3.892954 inches long*


If both models were keyed in scale to an Enterprise size of 1072 I get the following for the Botany Bay:

*BBay's "real world" length would be 367.234 feet or 4406.8085 inches.*

*Making a 1/350th scale model 12.59 inches long.*
*and a 1/1000th scale model 4.4068 inches long.*



Captain April said:


> As far as the Botany Bay goes, I'd just worry about scaling it with the shooting model, since that's the only part of the equation that we can point to with any degree of actual certainty.


We know both shooting models' sizes with certainty, but you are worried about using the only info we know with certainty? 

I'm sure that there was probably a point in here you were trying to make but you just didn't flesh it out in what you wrote. I'm constantly guilty of leaving out a key phrase or sentence here or there myself, thinking I had conveyed the information or point but realizing later it wasn't in there.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

Maybe he means....

If you take the shooting model sizes as accurate (let's say 135" for the E and 46" for the BB) then you have the ratio you need for any sizing (changed this from: scaling) regardless of how big the ships were supposed to be in the Star Trek universe.

46/135 = .34074074074074 which you can round to .0341 for sake of sanity...

Simply take your actual TOS E size (assuming you have one) and mutiply by .341 to get the correctly sized BB...

A 36" E would mean a 12.127" BB
A 34" E would mean an 11.594" BB

To get a BB of 15.67", you must have an E of about 46"...(take 135/46 ~ 2.935...then multiply 15.67 X 2.935 = 45.99145).

Just speculating... :freak:


----------



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

Huh?


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

I was speculating that maybe he used an E of 46 inches when determining what size a proportionately sized BB shoud be...  

Of course, it more likely that it was just a simple math error that resulted in the 15.something size for the BB...

In any event, it seems that you have a relatively accurate answer to your original question, right? :thumbsup:


----------



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

Barring any new info I think we are good to go!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well Chuck I had given up trying to explain what I was saying. And even thought this next bit is in response to what CA said it pretty well restates what I was saying. If I have any concern about the sizes it's not the scale and what not it's the relative difference between Enterprise and Botany Bay.



klgonsneedbotox said:


> Maybe he means....
> 
> If you take the shooting model sizes as accurate (let's say 135" for the E and 46" for the BB) then you have the ratio you need for any sizing (changed this from: scaling) regardless of how big the ships were supposed to be in the Star Trek universe.
> 
> ...


Indeed.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Net!!! Everything must be precisely as it should be!!!
> 
> *You 3D people must learn discipline!!! *:tongue:
> 
> Where is that Srg. Shultz when you need him!?!


Think perhaps the sargeant would have said "Nine" but I think "Nyet" is where you tried to go.

And failed, but still.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

klgonsneedbotox said:


> Maybe he means....
> 
> If you take the shooting model sizes as accurate (let's say 135" for the E and 46" for the BB) then you have the ratio you need for any sizing (changed this from: scaling) regardless of how big the ships were supposed to be in the Star Trek universe.
> 
> ...


Yup, you got the point, and yes, I screwed up the math a bit.

So, a BB scaled to the 11" PL 1701 would be 3 3/4".


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Ok...when are we going to get a 1/1000 (or 1/350) resin BB kit?


----------



## Orne (Feb 23, 1999)

Chuck, this might help - scratchbuilding a 1/350 TOS E, going with the 947' length (up until this thread started, had never heard of the 1072' dimension), and my engineering hull, minus the deflector dish/post, is 12 3/8". Guess you can compare it with the old studio photo of the E and the BB alongside against the bluescreen. The shuttlecraft bay hasn't been finished, but the end cap is trimmed down to where the lower lip of the deck-bay extends. Photos......

http://groups.msn.com/InfinityReach/workbench.msnw


----------



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

Captain April said:


> Yup, you got the point, and yes, I screwed up the math a bit.
> 
> So, a BB scaled to the 11" PL 1701 would be 3 3/4".


3.89" based on 134" Enterprise(as opposed to your 135") and a 45.9" BBay(rather then 46). Sounds anal, by if you're using scale models for such calculations it does make a difference. 

But we are basically getting the same numbers, now that you have corrected your math, you are just using a different method to get your numbers.

My main confusion was that there was no indication of what scale you were talking about when you said "perfect size."

The credit for the key to all of this however, is Phil Broad's careful measurements and posting of his pictures on the cloudster site.

Without the 45.9..." measurement I wouldn't have been able(nor anyone else) to figure out any of this.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Think perhaps the sargeant would have said "Nine" but I think "Nyet" is where you tried to go.
> 
> And failed, but still.


_Nein_ :thumbsup:

It's great to see folks including some popular foreign words and phrases in their posts. If you want to get them right, look up the various dictionaries on line with search phrases such as: 

german dictionary

german-english dictionary


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Well Chuck I had given up trying to explain what I was saying. And even thought this next bit is in response to what CA said it pretty well restates what I was saying. If I have any concern about the sizes it's not the scale and what not it's the relative difference between Enterprise and Botany Bay.


But, my good man, with the proper "full size" measurement in inches and it's proper scale you can figure out that at any scale, at any size.

If you want proportions, here ya' go:

100 / 134(inches TOS E) = 0.74626865671641791044776119402985

_45.904255319(inches BBay) x _0.74626865671641791044776119402985_ = 34.2569 percent_

_*So the Botany Bay is 34.2569 percent the size of the TOS E in length.*_
Personally it makes more sense to be to divide the BBay's "real world" length in inches by whatever scale you are trying to match, such as :

(BBay real world measurement in inches)*3892.9549 inches divided by 1000 = 3.8929549 inches means the Botany Bay should be 3.8929 inches in 1/1000th scale.*


*You can then use the exact same process for whatever size model you want to match* - 1/350th, 1/537th, 1/700th, 1/2500th(a Griffworks favorite - probably fits well in his duffel bag  )and whatever weird scales the AMT/Ertl original and cutaway models were(don't know it offhand but I'm sure someone here does and/or it can be found rather easily).

That seems to make more sense then relying on physically measuring a scale model that someone is trying to figure out the relative size to, such as Thomas' 1/1000th TOS E.

But if that's how you prefer to figure it out, the Botany Bay is 34.2569 percent the size of the TOS E in length.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Think perhaps the sargeant would have said "Nine" but I think "Nyet" is where you tried to go.
> 
> And failed, but still.


Geez!

I was wondering how long it would take someone to notice and comment on that! 

Actually it's spelled "Nein."

But because you were the first one to notice
you passed! Took ya' forever, "but still..."


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Guys, the 134.whatever" measurement is the result of a manufacturing error, and as such, really shouldn't be taken as a reference of much of anything. 

For future reference, I'd suggest we all go by the intended length of 135". Should make the math a lot easier to manage.


----------



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

Captain April said:


> Guys, the 134.whatever" measurement is the result of a manufacturing error, and as such, really shouldn't be taken as a reference of much of anything.
> 
> For future reference, I'd suggest we all go by the intended length of 135". Should make the math a lot easier to manage.


Whoaaaa Nelly!!!!!

You are basically saying, "Guys, let's take the one or two measurements we are absolutely sure of and throw them out the window; because somewhere, some place in the bottom of a pile of one person's personal blueprints is a 40 year old copy of prop plans that were never executed the way we saw them onscreen."

Perhaps it was a "manufacturing error."

With all due respect, I see the intellectual point you are trying to make, Captain April. I just can't agree with the reasoning behind it.

The 134.x " TOS E is what was seen onscreen(manufacturing error or not), as is the 45.9" length of the Botany Bay.

Prop plans are more often deviated from then reproduced 100% perfectly.
Does that make the paper and ink plans more important then what actually appeared onscreen?

I don't think we should_ imagine that the model was bigger then what it was_ for the sake of being accurate to a set of blueprints that never appeared onscreen and have not been seen(muchless published) but by few people in the last 35+ years. Perhaps Mr. Datin will some day share them with the wider public - he has every right not to of course. But even if he did, they were prop building plans, not the finished product seen on the screen.

To pretend the TOS E was bigger then it was seen onscreen would also, by definition, throw the Botany Bay out of proportion with the TOS Enterprise, unless we want to pretend that it too was bigger then it actually was.

But of course, everyone has a right to agree or disagree on this one. :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I doubt the primary hull being not-quite-round was intentional, and I'd be willing to bet that _that_ is where that missing inch went.

Also, with the Botany Bay being so much smaller than the Enterprise, it was probably a lot easier to keep the size of the various parts under better control, so from where I sit, the problem isn't with the size of the DY-100.

How does this relate to scaling things to be in proper proportion to whatever model of the Enterprise we may have in mind? Because any model we pick other than the big shooting model, in all likelihood, wouldn't have the peculiarities the big model does. The saucer on the PL model, as far as I can tell, is perfectly circular, the nacelles are straight, parallel, and both are the same length. And if blown up to the proper size, while keeping the proper proportions, would clock in at that magic number of 135", if not slightly bigger (a little playing with the calculator indicates that the intended size might've been closer to 135 1/4", but that's pure speculation on my part).

Getting back to the point, the difference of, at most, 1 1/4" on a model over eleven feet long, translated into something to the size any of us would be working on, is negligible.


----------



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

Quite true, the difference is neglible. For that reason and other reasons stated earlier in the thread I just don't see a need to change a number that is so well accepted.

But to each their own.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

There were no "manufacturing errors".

The model was hand-built to spec by professionals.

The so-called "out-of-round" distortion to the plastic saucer was the result of years of shooting under hot stage lights combined with the enclosed heat generated by the interior lighting. NOT by any lack of professionalism on the model makers' part.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^ Didn't Datin himself comment on the irregularities in the saucer due to trying to properly shape something that big using the methods they had available to them?


----------



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

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ^^ Didn't Datin himself comment on the irregularities in the saucer due to trying to properly shape something that big using the methods they had available to them?





Trek Ace said:


> There were no "manufacturing errors".
> 
> The model was hand-built to spec by professionals.
> 
> The so-called "out-of-round" distortion to the plastic saucer was the result of years of shooting under hot stage lights combined with the enclosed heat generated by the interior lighting. NOT by any lack of professionalism on the model makers' part.


If the model I grew up loving was 134," that's good enough for me.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, in any case, whether the irregularity in the saucer and the skewed nacelles are due to the difficulty in constructing a five-foot diameter vacuformed saucer and keeping a couple of logs mounted on 2x4's straight on a regular basis, or it got that way through hot studio lights and/or several years of Paramount neglect and Smithsonian mishandling, the probable fact remains that the ship as it is presently is not as it was supposed to be, and if the PL model was _really_ made to be accurate to the shooting model, we would've all been bitching up a storm about how weird the thing looked.

Models are generally supposed to be something of an idealization of reality, so I say go with the intended length of 135", since, if you think about it, that's what the PL model is representing, the 135" intention, not the 134.?" reality.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ^^ Didn't Datin himself comment on the irregularities in the saucer due to trying to properly shape something that big using the methods they had available to them?


Why doesn't somebody ask him?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I believe the information is already exant. I've got it around here somewhere but right now, in my present state of disorganization, it would be improbable that I could find them in a timely manner.


----------



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

The man is in a well deserved retirement. That part of his life was a long long time ago and not his only work in the field.

If Perfessor Coffee or someone else can find the info you are referring to, Perfessor, it would be preferable to bothering the gentleman about it. We are all talking about a difference of less then an inch here.

If I were his age and someone asked so miniscule a question about something I did 40 years ago I'd likely respond with the Shatner line "Get a life!"


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Hm.

Well, there is that series of articles in Communicator, so that's be a good place to start.

Or better yet, we've always got the author of those articles, one William S. McCullars of ye olde IDIC Page.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> If both models were keyed in scale to an Enterprise size of 947 feet I get the following for the Botany Bay:
> 
> *BBay's "real world" length would be 324.4129 feet(3892.9549 inches)*
> 
> ...


I just checked the length of my model and would you believe that right out of the box (no local adjustment, pure global co-ordinates) it's 32.4638 units. After a quick local adjustment of 10 to 1 it's 324.638 units. Pretty darn close! I probably won't even bother sorting out the difference.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> I just checked the length of my model and would you believe that right out of the box (no local adjustment, pure global co-ordinates) it's 32.4638 units. After a quick local adjustment of 10 to 1 it's 324.638 units. Pretty darn close! I probably won't even bother sorting out the difference.


Kewl beans.

Now we just need to find 400 feet of lumber.


----------



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

...notice I avoided asking you about your "unit"...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Trek Ace is correct. The length of the model is not an "error." Only a professional modeler can bring in a hand constructed miniature of this scale and complexity, with these materials, with this level of accuracy. We're talking about little more than 1/2 of one percent deviation. And we're also looking at a model with 3 seasons "in the trenches" at two separate effects houses and decades of subsequent aging and "restoration".

I mentioned the blueprinted 135" figure because it must be consulted if you want to get to the bottom of what scale Jefferies himself thought the model was.

We should also keep in mind that the 134 "and change" figure is not a direct measurement of the model. Kerr was very careful to state that he never measured the assembled model. There was no time to set up the needed apparatus. For all we know, the averaging he understandably did to restore some parts to symmetry might have made his reconstruction come out shorter than it actually is.

My own speculation about the slight under-sizing is that the final saucer diameter was necessarily reduced due to material limitations. Kerr's figures imply this as he states his averaged saucer is 59.25" in diameter. However, the blueprints call for a diameter of 60". Perhaps the size of the plastic used to vacuum form the hull was the limiting factor. Maybe it was the size of the vaccum frame or how large they could make the buck it was formed over. One thing you can be pretty sure of: It wasn't carelessness.

Mark


----------

