# A new 1/350 Trek Tool from R2 or...



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Reading their latest Round 2 blog entry, the notion of a larger scale Eagle Transporter is asked about. 

From Wonderfest 2011, Jamie Hood is asked if R2 would consider another 1/350 Trek kit. He answers that if the 1701-TOS "does really well", we can expect another large scale, sometime. Just over a full year since the release, we don't publicly know the verdict yet.

http://youtu.be/RBLnpPn4bY8?t=5m4s

Merge these two points and I wonder how many would trade a large Trek for a large, modernly-accurate, high-tech-engineered kit of an Eagle Transporter? Potentially they could produce a Plus Pack similar to the 1701-TOS with accessory attachments and options as seen throughout the series!

And if not, what Trek ranks where in the grand scheme?

I figure with the Eagle, it is mostly tubes with specific joiners, 4 leg pods, the CM and a few boxes, cylindricals and perhaps some spheres. Compared to nearly any full bodied, curvacious and jutting Trek design, I wonder if the Eagle is not significantly easier to manufacture.


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

I have one of the Product Enterprise 24" Eagles...they're *big*. I think a 48" Eagle kit would be be beyond what we could expect from R2.

I do think that an Eagle kit would be a better bet for tool re-use for Round 2 though. They could re-release the Eagle every few years with a different pod and accessories, as well as figures for diorama options. You could potentially get 10 years of Eagle releases and they WOULD sell...

I really like the Trek releases but it's time for some new-tool Space: 1999!


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

The Drydock might be fun, but I went with the "24 Eagle Transporter.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

I voted for a 1/350 Excelsior but I know sheer size would make it extremely unlikely. 

How about a 1/537 version to be in scale with the AMT Reliant, K'Tinga, and Refit Enterprise? Would like it to be the NX-2000 version with clear parts for lighting. This would be the kit that I really wished with all my heart that AMT had originally produced after unboxing the 1/1000 scale Excelsior (NCC-2000) which is just too small IMHO.

Was just picturing a nice space dock display with the 1/537 Excelsior, Enterprise, and Reliant.


----------



## LARSON DESIGNS (Nov 15, 2013)

1/350 K'Tinga for me.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

My vote would split between a new-tool 1/72 scale Eagle, a 1/350 Klingon D-7 and a 1/1000 Enterprise-D

Yes, I note that two of my three choices are not listed choices. It's what I would want. 

Honestly, I know a Big Eagle is desired by many, and it would be a hit overseas (the Japanese would lose their collective minds), I think a fully loaded, tricked out 1/72 scale Eagle (ALL the option parts including two pods and the 'freight' platform) would approach 'big kit' in both pricing and use of resources and be more affordable overall.

*heh* if they want a price point over $100 they could include a landing pad in styrene, I think Larson Designs has something that would serve as a pantograph prototype.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

*Other*: I don't know if this is considered "large-scale" or "medium-scale," but the next serious kit from R2 that I hope they concentrate on is the Galileo shuttle-craft.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I voted 1/350 K'Tinga, but the 24" Eagle is a close second.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I voted for the 24 inch Eagle. Anything bigger would be to big.

It's not listed, but I would also vote for a 1/350 D-7.


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

I voted K'tinga as the most realistic option, but 1/1000 Regula 1? Interesting...


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

K'tinga, Or TOS Klingon Battle Cruiser would be great.
I also would welcome any new larger scale Space 1999 kits.

I loved that show as a kid in the 1970's!
I remember getting that big 1999 Eagle space ship from MATTELL for Christmas one year..Very cool toy.


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

So much Trek, a 24 Eagle would be great.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I want a new tool Eagle AND a K'Tinga.


----------



## harristotle (Aug 7, 2008)

I voted for the Excelsior just because it's my favorite Trek ship, though any of the Trek designs I'd be happy with. I just don't understand the draw with the Eagle.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I'm voting 1/537 Excelsior with options for the STVI and generations versions along with a new tool TMP E refit.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

harristotle said:


> I voted for the Excelsior just because it's my favorite Trek ship, though any of the Trek designs I'd be happy with. I just don't understand the draw with the Eagle.


I think you have to hit that 'sweet spot' of being a 'rockethead' child of the '60s, watching Star Trek during the re-runs of the early '70s, and having that impression there would never ever be any more Star Trek so one endlessly hoped for a new SF TV series that would have some decent effects and intelligent scripts.

Well, we got maybe 60% of that... 

But the Eagle had 'it'. It looked plausible, functional, real. Many of us winced a bit as the casual way such a craft flew in atmosphere but as a 'space to space' vehicle it was super. It was 2001 in our homes every week. 

At least that's my attempt to explain something that's basically emotional.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

harristotle said:


> I voted for the Excelsior just because it's my favorite Trek ship, though any of the Trek designs I'd be happy with. I just don't understand the draw with the Eagle.







But I don't understand someone who'd vote for "any" of the Trek designs above an Eagle. I love the K'Tinga but I find the Galileo shuttle a bit boring for instance.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Steve H said:


> I think you have to hit that 'sweet spot' of being a 'rockethead' child of the '60s, watching Star Trek during the re-runs of the early '70s, and having that impression there would never ever be any more Star Trek so one endlessly hoped for a new SF TV series that would have some decent effects and intelligent scripts.
> 
> Well, we got maybe 60% of that...
> 
> ...









And not forgetting the main reason why people love the Eagle..........it's striking shape that grabbed many people (including myself) as soon as they saw it. It's one of those designs that's instantly recognisble, highly original (no other ship looks anything like it) and it just looks great.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

SUNGOD said:


> And not forgetting the main reason why people love the Eagle..........it's striking shape that grabbed many people (including myself) as soon as they saw it. It's one of those designs that's instantly recognisble, highly original (no other ship looks anything like it) and it just looks great.


It does look great, but actually it does remind me a lot of the Moon Bus....


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Proper2 said:


> It does look great, but actually it does remind me a lot of the Moon Bus....








Well the Eagles designer Brian Johnson worked on 2001 and I think he said he was disapointed with the way the Moonbus turned out so incorporated some elements from that into the Eagles.

But even though the front of the Moonbus vaguely resembles the beak of the Eagles and the landing gear has slight similarities they still look a hell of a lot different to each other.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

But, I see no engine exhausts on the moon bus for forward momentum.


----------



## ViperRecon (Aug 3, 2010)

I think for a lot of us the Eagle looked like something near-future that might grow out of the then-current space program. Like Steve_H said, plausible.

I'd love an accurate one but 24" is too big for me (wish I had gotten one of the 12" PE Eagles when they were cheap)


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

irishtrek said:


> But, I see no engine exhausts on the moon bus for forward momentum.


It's hard to rig a freon jet to a still photograph...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

irishtrek said:


> But, I see no engine exhausts on the moon bus for forward momentum.


I see no propeller on a helicopter to create forward momentum either. 

They could gimbal the lift nozzles aftward a little, to vector the thrust.


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

This poll presents five great and realistic ideas for big kits. I chose the 1/48 Eagle, but the Reliant, Ktinga, Enterprise-D and E were all equally desirable. I imagine this is the same sort of hard discussion that R2 has on an internal basis every few months.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

*Reliant*

a 1/350 scale RELIANT would be great !


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

The potential for detail on a 1/350 K'tinga -- not to mention a properly proportioned hull, scaled hull plating, and lighting opportunities -- makes it the one I'd want. :thumbsup:


----------



## Space Rat (May 6, 2012)

Anything they decide to make I'll be happy with, but I would REALLY like a 1/350th NX-01 Refit.


----------



## Kremin (Sep 26, 2012)

wonder what size a 1:350 Regula 1 would be, the scaling on the movie is a bit hard to say


----------



## TonyT (Oct 19, 2013)

Voted for a 1/48 Eagle...1/350 K'Tinga would be a close second.

Google "Space: 2099" and take a look...Could mean a lot of interest, no?


----------



## Mr. Wabac (Nov 9, 2002)

A 48" Eagle seems out of reach for an injection molded subject.
A 12" version is really no bigger (albeit more accurate)
I like the idea of a 24" kit that would be awesome - the spine might need some metal reinforcement rods/tubes though.
Larger Star Trek kits can wait - I still haven't built the 1701A, nor bought the original "E" - although I do plan to.

I think Space:1999 is long overdue for some styrene love - with the Season 2 Blu-Ray set stil to debut, it would seem a good time to produce a kit. Agree there are lots of options available for such a kit over time.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I know I'm biased as they're the 2 I want to see but I think a new tool Eagle and a 1/350th K'Tinga are no brainers for R2.

They're 2 hugely popluar spacecraft with older modellers (who are the main builders of these type of kits) and I seem to remember the Product Enterprise diecasts sold well too.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

I/350 Reliant


KHAAAAAAAN !!!!


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

KUROK said:


> I/350 Reliant
> 
> 
> KHAAAAAAAN !!!!






Couldn't they use parts from the Enterprise A for that?


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Mr. Wabac said:


> A 48" Eagle seems out of reach for an injection molded subject.
> A 12" version is really no bigger (albeit more accurate)
> I like the idea of a 24" kit that would be awesome - the spine might need some metal reinforcement rods/tubes though.
> Larger Star Trek kits can wait - I still haven't built the 1701A, nor bought the original "E" - although I do plan to.
> ...






Yes I think a 48 inch Eagle's very unlikely.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

I hope the Eagle comes out first, I am kind of burned out on Trek models right now.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

BWolfe said:


> I hope the Eagle comes out first, I am kind of burned out on Trek models right now.


Amen to that. Other than an accurate Trek shuttle, it would be nice to see other genre shows get their due.


----------



## MLCrisis32 (Oct 11, 2011)

I would love a 1/350 Reliant! Others would be the 537 Excelsior and my no-chance-in-hades wish is a 1/350 refit shrunk to 1/537.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

This has been great to see so many comments and ideas! I'd love a 1/537 Excelsior as well! The 1/1000 Regula station just popped into mind. It's probably too much an odd ball choice to ever be done.

After 4 days, it's 33 Eagle to 36 KTinga, that would seem to be a dead-heat relatively speaking. They are both big names in their own right.

12hrs later it's 34 Eagle and 38 KTinga with a couple 'other' votes for an accurate Eagle in the current ~foot-long size.


----------



## Larry523 (Feb 16, 2010)

Hmm, where's the choice for "All of the Above" ???


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

ViperRecon said:


> I think for a lot of us the Eagle looked like something near-future that might grow out of the then-current space program. Like Steve_H said, plausible.
> 
> I'd love an accurate one but 24" is too big for me...


This is the reason I voted "other"--I don't have the space for a 24" Eagle, but I'd love to have an accurate styrene version that's comparable in size to the current reissue.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

SUNGOD said:


> Couldn't they use parts from the Enterprise A for that?


Nope.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

John P said:


> I see no propeller on a helicopter to create forward momentum either.
> 
> They could gimbal the lift nozzles aftward a little, to vector the thrust.


But then that would push it up as well as forward at the same time.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

irishtrek said:


> But, I see no engine exhausts on the moon bus for forward momentum.


Everyone gets biased by the old Aurora (and now Moebius) kit into thinking that there were no propulsion engines on the moon bus. In fact the moon bus had two rear-mounted engines on the rear bulkhead (as well as side- and forward-mounted ones on the "shoulder pads").

Here's a comparison of the original kit part (top) and the accurized rear wall from my A/M kit:


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

I don't know how much interest there would be, but how about a 1:350 Phase II Enterprise? Perhaps it could in part be based on a retooled 350 TOS Enterprise saucer, neck, and engineering hull. The warp engines would be all new of course. I've always wanted a model of this version on this old movie teaser poster:
http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/_...yalpha/en/images/6/69/TMP_magazine_teaser.jpg


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

John P said:


> Nope.







I must admit I haven't compared them in detail but looking at the saucer and nacelles they look very similar to the A. Couldn't they tool up a few new parts?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Paulbo said:


> Everyone gets biased by the old Aurora (and now Moebius) kit into thinking that there were no propulsion engines on the moon bus. In fact the moon bus had two rear-mounted engines on the rear bulkhead (as well as side- and forward-mounted ones on the "shoulder pads").
> 
> Here's a comparison of the original kit part (top) and the accurized rear wall from my A/M kit:


so the aft facing exhausts are those 2 small squares on each side of the hatch??


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

K'Tinga with Qonos 1 parts. Id buy at least 2 kits to make both versions


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

irishtrek said:


> But then that would push it up as well as forward at the same time.


Yes, exactly Like a Harrier jet does when it hovers. I think you may have noticed that the moon bus hovers on those rockets, which need to push up to make it hover. Gimbal them aftward a tiny bit, and the thrust vectors aftward, which makes the moon bus hover AND move forward.

Pretty basic physics.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

SUNGOD said:


> I must admit I haven't compared them in detail but looking at the saucer and nacelles they look very similar to the A. Couldn't they tool up a few new parts?


The Reliant filming model itself was built from scratch. Everything's a little different.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

John P said:


> Yes, exactly Like a Harrier jet does when it hovers. I think you may have noticed that the moon bus hovers on those rockets, which need to push up to make it hover. Gimbal them aftward a tiny bit, and the thrust vectors aftward, which makes the moon bus hover AND move forward.
> 
> Pretty basic physics.


Ah, but it would also push the bus forward at the same time and I see no sign of any manuvering thrusters to keep it stationary.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

If you don't want to go forward, then don't gimbal the rockets.

Remember the original premise of the moon bus was a ground walking
vehicle. It would only use its rockets for short hops over obstructions. 
I've always assumed that Dr. Floyd was in a hurry to get to TMA-1, so they 
wasted a bunch of rocket fuel.

And the maneuvering thrusters are in the side pods.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

John P said:


> The Reliant filming model itself was built from scratch. Everything's a little different.






But it would have to have been built from scratch as it wasn't a kit. Some of the main pieces such as the saucer front and nacelles look very similar so I wonder if a new sprue or two could dress it up to look like the reliant.


----------



## kangg7 (Jun 21, 2000)

I went for "other" because I would prefer an TOS D-7 instead of the newer Klingon ship. :thumbsup:

model on!! :wave:

Dave


----------



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

Left out the TOS D-7!!!

Which if I were to guess would end up a very close second to the 1/350th K'Tinga.


And since somebody is already making a 1/350th K'Tinga, I think it would make more sense for R2 to make a 1/350th D-7, then maybe a K'Tinga afterwards.

Heck, they already seem to have the D-7 down cold at 1/650th scale,

though as a poll I did earlier shows, most people would like to see the TOS original F/X window decals done as clear inserts - with perhaps decals thrown in if someone wants to go the ultra-filming-miniature replicated route.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Why not clear window inserts on both 350 Enterprises along with decals that go on the inside of the windows, like what Monogram did with their Voyager special edition.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Left out the TOS D-7!!!
> 
> Which if I were to guess would end up a very close second to the 1/350th K'Tinga.
> 
> ...





But that K'Tinga will be resin won't it? Not the same thing as having a newly tooled styrene kit. Not one bit!

Plus if someone wants to make a decent fairly large D7 they can always get the recent Revell version. Plus the smaller PL kits. I know the Revell version has aztec patterns on the back but that's easily fixable. The K'Tinga has a lot of detail that only a larger kit can do justice too and it's long overdue.


----------



## Mr. Wabac (Nov 9, 2002)

I think if you throw the D7 in the mix it would split the K'Tinga vote and allow the 24" Eagle to take the lead. Ah politics.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> But that K'Tinga will be resin won't it? Not the same thing as having a newly tooled styrene kit. Not one bit!
> 
> Plus if someone wants to make a decent fairly large D7 they can always get the recent Revell version. Plus the smaller PL kits. I know the Revell version has aztec patterns on the back but that's easily fixable. The K'Tinga has a lot of detail that only a larger kit can do justice too and it's long overdue.


Not saying a 350 styrene K'Tinga wouldn't be great, but what issues do you have with a resin kit version? Really just curious. As an owner of the kit, I can tell you that it is a very clean kit (as resin kits go) and looks to be well designed. The detailing is quite crisp, particularly on top of the bulb. I understand such detail might (and I say might) be unavoidable softer on a styrene version: http://www.collectormodel.com/round2-models/2128-the-use-of-resin-in-modeling/#sthash.4ZsH4gSO.dpbs

Cost is certainly an issue, but even that becomes less of one one once you see this kit in person (trust me). Lighting is probably more difficult than it might be with a styrene version, but it is completely doable on this kit.

You are absolutely correct about needing the K'Tinga at a larger scale to do it justice.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Sparky said:


> Not saying a 350 styrene K'Tinga wouldn't be great, but what issues do you have with a resin kit version? Really just curious. As an owner of the kit, I can tell you that it is a very clean kit (as resin kits go) and looks to be well designed. The detailing is quite crisp, particularly on top of the bulb. I understand such detail might (and I say might) be unavoidable softer on a styrene version: http://www.collectormodel.com/round2-models/2128-the-use-of-resin-in-modeling/#sthash.4ZsH4gSO.dpbs
> 
> Cost is certainly an issue, but even that becomes less of one one once you see this kit in person (trust me). Lighting is probably more difficult than it might be with a styrene version, but it is completely doable on this kit.
> 
> You are absolutely correct about needing the K'Tinga at a larger scale to do it justice.








I just don't like resin full stop. No matter how good the detail I'm just not interested.

I want a proper plastic kit up to the standards of the R2 Enterprise A with little plastic windows etc.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> I just don't like resin full stop. No matter how good the detail I'm just not interested.
> 
> I want a proper plastic kit up to the standards of the R2 Enterprise A with little plastic windows etc.


Well I can't disagree that having molded clear windows would be great. I really hope that Round 2 does do the 350 K'Tinga. I wouldn't mind having a styrene version as well.


----------



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

Mr. Wabac said:


> I think if you throw the D7 in the mix it would split the K'Tinga vote and allow the 24" Eagle to take the lead. Ah politics.


True. I thought about that. You could do a poll that allows people to pick two or even three to four though. Then the outcomes might be a bit more accurate as a reflection of demand. Though I would suggest expanding the poll to include more then just the addition of the D-7. Such as 1/1000th B and C Enterprises, then let people pick four. It would have to be in a new thread though, as already cast votes would skew the results.


----------



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

SUNGOD said:


> But that K'Tinga will be resin won't it? Not the same thing as having a newly tooled styrene kit. Not one bit!
> 
> Plus if someone wants to make a decent fairly large D7 they can always get the recent Revell version. Plus the smaller PL kits. I know the Revell version has aztec patterns on the back but that's easily fixable. The K'Tinga has a lot of detail that only a larger kit can do justice too and it's long overdue.


I don't disagree with anything you've said, nor mean to suggest that a $400 resin kit is comparable.

Just that I might release the D-7 350th first followed by the K'Tinga if I were R2.

Both should definitely be done! As well as the Space:1999 eagles.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I don't disagree with anything you've said, nor mean to suggest that a $400 resin kit is comparable.
> 
> Just that I might release the D-7 350th first followed by the K'Tinga if I were R2.
> 
> Both should definitely be done! As well as the Space:1999 eagles.







There's 3 overwhelming reasons why if I was R2 I'd do the K'Tinga first. Firstly one was in the development stage before being cancelled, secondly again there'a already a pretty decent large(ish) D7 from Revell and thirdly there isn't a decent K'Tinga available in styrene. The old AMT kit is too small for good detail and apart from the rear the detail's really poor (or lack of it).


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> There's 3 overwhelming reasons why if I was R2 I'd do the K'Tinga first. Firstly one was in the development stage before being cancelled, secondly again there'a already a pretty decent large(ish) D7 from Revell and thirdly there isn't a decent K'Tinga available in styrene. The old AMT kit is too small for good detail and apart from the rear the detail's really poor (or lack of it).


I would also add lighting possibilities that add to kit appeal. The K'Tinga is rich in them, the D-7 not so much.

Hate to say it but the detailing on the on the AMT K'Tinga kit IS really poor, almost cartoonish when compared to the actual studio model.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Sparky said:


> I would also add lighting possibilities that add to kit appeal. The K'Tinga is rich in them, the D-7 not so much.
> 
> Hate to say it but the detailing on the on the AMT K'Tinga kit IS really poor, almost cartoonish when compared to the actual studio model.








Absolutely. One thing I love about the K'Tinga (as well as it's 70s kit parts look) is the little windows on the main body which weren't on the D7.

Just a great updating of a smooth pretty featureless 60s design.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

It's gotta be the 24" Eagle. I mean honestly!


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

What ? Nobody wants a 350 Fesarius ?!!!
lol


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Big Kazon Torpedo!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

:lol:


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

irishtrek said:


> I'm voting 1/537 Excelsior with options for the STVI and generations versions along with a new tool TMP E refit.


Seconded on both of these ideas...
IMHO, the BIG ships are GREAT, but are a big risk for them if they don't sell enough, while the small ones will (probably) sell better but be a bit more difficult to trick/detail out.

I think a Refit and Excelsior done in the 1/537 (or 1/600?) might do well, detail-wise and price point wise...possibly selling enough copies to keep the company bean counters happy...
(Plus it would be easier for the Trekkers to find room in their homes for multiple copies of these ships...) 

Well, that's my 2 bits at any rate...YMMV.  :wave:


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Captain America said:


> Seconded on both of these ideas...
> IMHO, the BIG ships are GREAT, but are a big risk for them if they don't sell enough, while the small ones will (probably) sell better but be a bit more difficult to trick/detail out.
> 
> I think a Refit and Excelsior done in the 1/537 (or 1/600?) might do well, detail-wise and price point wise...possibly selling enough copies to keep the company bean counters happy...
> ...


I'd also include a retooled 1/537 K'tinga (poor detailing on current kit). Definelty might be a good path for R2 if more 350 kits don't seem feasible for whatever reason.


----------



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

SUNGOD said:


> There's 3 overwhelming reasons why if I was R2 I'd do the K'Tinga first. Firstly one was in the development stage before being cancelled, secondly again there'a already a pretty decent large(ish) D7 from Revell and thirdly there isn't a decent K'Tinga available in styrene. The old AMT kit is too small for good detail and apart from the rear the detail's really poor (or lack of it).



I love the K'Tinga too. I wasn't aware there was already one in devolopment back during the first incarnation.

I had heard talk about it back then, but was more focused with the fact that they were about to be sold without producing a 1/350th TOS Enterprise.

How far along were they? Anyone know?



Though if I know Gary Kerr he will probably look at what they have and then start from scratch.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Back when Playing Mantis got sold to RC2 Thomas Sasser was developing kits for them and I think he had already started on the parts lay out for the K'tinga.


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

irishtrek said:


> Back when Playing Mantis got sold to RC2 Thomas Sasser was developing kits for them and I think he had already started on the parts lay out for the K'tinga.


Irishtrek is right, the Sasser parts layout diagram was actually posted either here or on Starship Modeler (Probably both). I'm sure somebody still has a copy to post again. I'll look for mine tonight in case no one else has it.


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

I voted 1/350 K-Tinga. A 1/350 TOS D-7 would be a good choice as well.


----------



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

RB said:


> Irishtrek is right, the Sasser parts layout diagram was actually posted either here or on Starship Modeler (Probably both). I'm sure somebody still has a copy to post again. I'll look for mine tonight in case no one else has it.



That would be excellent!

If they have that much work done, and it's accurate, that might very well be the next 350th. Though I doubt we will see it this year.


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

Finally found the parts layout posted by Mr. Sasser. Looks like it would've been (will be?) a great kit!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Looks to me like it was going to have options for a Kronos 1 as well as the K'tinga.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Thanks for posting that and haven't seen it for ages. If these boards are anything to go by I reckon R2 should just get on and do a new tool Eagle and K'Tinga.:thumbsup:


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

TOO MUCH TREK!

*EAGLE.. for sure!* :thumbsup:


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

RB said:


> Finally found the parts layout posted by Mr. Sasser. Looks like it would've been (will be?) a great kit!


THAT'S what I'm talkin' about! Add lights and photoetch and that kit would keep me distracted for weeks!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I love the K'Tinga too. I wasn't aware there was already one in devolopment back during the first incarnation.
> 
> I had heard talk about it back then, but was more focused with the fact that they were about to be sold without producing a 1/350th TOS Enterprise.
> 
> ...


Tom Sasser had a complete parts breakdown prepared in the form of an exploded drawing. I think he may have been moving along on individual parts drawings too. It was "under way" so to speak.

EDIT: That'll teach me to post without reading the whole thread. :lol:


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

Quick side note...Megahobby looks to have pics of the assembled and painted up retooled Alpha kit . Looks pretty good...Main Mission looks the same but appears to have new decals for the computer panels. According to Mega the vacuform base is expanded to four pieces from two to allow the entire base to be included.

http://www.megahobby.com/space1999moonbasealpha13200.aspx

Maybe Paragraphix can give us an accurate stairway for Main Mission? :wave:


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

Damn! They had to go and improve the Moonbase kit... Now I'm going to have to go and buy it! I've got the original kit and was never really happy with the shortcuts that were taken with the base layout so I put it on the permanent back burner.

With improved landing pads, and 5 of them (instead of 3 in the original) it's going to look a treat! At 17 x17" I may wall mount it with fibre optics or 3M shiny tape for the windows as they used on the studio model.

I might go ahead and just build Main Mission from the original kit as a stand alone display piece.


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

I voted for the 1:350 Reliant, although I would be interested in a 1:350 K'tinga or a TOS Klingon D-7. A 1:350 'Office Complex' to go with the Enterprise Refit would be very cool too.

I like the idea of the large scale Eagles, but I have a complete collection of the the Product Enterprise Eagles including the big one, so Space:1999 is pretty well covered for me. Now if the were to do the Hawk in any scale, I might jump at that. I only have my poor old Airfix Hawk and it would be nice to have an accurate new kit.


----------



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

John P said:


> Tom Sasser had a complete parts breakdown prepared in the form of an exploded drawing. I think he may have been moving along on individual parts drawings too. It was "under way" so to speak.
> 
> EDIT: That'll teach me to post without reading the whole thread. :lol:


Maybe it worked differently then, but I've been informed by reputable sources that now a completely detailed blueprint is submitted first these days by companies like Moebius and R2, and the reds do the breakdown first, pending final approval by Moebius or R2, of course. So if it was the same way then and those are the final breakdowns picture chances are there is little left to do.

It may be very close to being ready to go, though I am sure R2 would want someone like Gary Kerr to tweak it and insure the model's accuracy.


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

RB said:


> Finally found the parts layout posted by Mr. Sasser. Looks like it would've been (will be?) a great kit!


George Takei voice "Oh my"

A 1/350 Ktinga would be great. But the real choice in the R2 boardroom is should we make (1) a 1/350 Ktinga, or (2) a 1/1000 Ktinga, a 1/2500 Search for Spock set of three (Excelsior, Grisson, and KBOP), and a 1/32 Galileo. R2 has previously said that the tooling costs for one big kit are about the same as for 3 small kits.


----------



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

phicks said:


> George Takei voice "Oh my"
> 
> A 1/350 Ktinga would be great. But the real choice in the R2 boardroom is should we make (1) a 1/350 Ktinga, or (2) a 1/1000 Ktinga, a 1/2500 Search for Spock set of three (Excelsior, Grisson, and KBOP), and a 1/32 Galileo. R2 has previously said that the tooling costs for one big kit are about the same as for 3 small kits.


Well the Galileo is already a done deal, only when it hit the shelves, late this year or in the next year is the only question there.

I don't see R2 releasing a new 1/350th kit this year, other then perhaps getting most of the designing for one such as the K'Tinga or D-7 out of the way. Getting the molds cut would be the most expensive thing. And I doubt they would spend that kind of money before getting the Christmas season boost in cash from what they already will have to offer by then.

It will also help them a lot that most of the production problems seem to have been overcome with the 1/350th TOS Enterprise. Chances are they will make a lot more profit on that kit this year and especially around Christmas then last year - as I'm sure they didn't expect to be replacing all those warped parts that the Chinese factory fudged up. 

Maybe the reds are feeding their workers more rice or letting them sleep in the factory so they can slow down the production line and allow them enough demolding time.

But whatever the reason, the parts problems seem to be behind them for the most part.

Hopefully it will be a banner year for R2's sales - they deserve it - and next year they will have more cash then they know what to do with and will make a bunch more killer kits! :thumbsup:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I could be wrong, I have been in the past, but...

Jamie and Gary have both said the Galileo is delayed. Still in the drawing/planing
phase. I don't see how it can be out this year. Probably 2015, but that is my own guess.

Now I don't think this will happen, but with the Galileo in the early stages it could still
be canceled. Again I don't think this will happen.

I'm guessing the big kit for 2015 will be the Galileo. The actual development/mold cutting will probably be the big expense. 

I think all the Star Trek stuff has been announced for 2014. The only Re-pop of
the original kits left is the old Galileo kit. With the new kit on the way I can't see
a business case for re releasing it.

None of this should be taken as even slightly critical of R2. I'm thrilled with what they have done so far. 

And finally, I have no Idea as to the profitability of the Big TOS E. I'm sure the teething
problems it had with warped parts did not help it. I hope R2 had some kind of recourse
with the Chinese manufacturing plant.


----------



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

mach7 said:


> I could be wrong, I have been in the past, but...
> 
> Jamie and Gary have both said the Galileo is delayed. Still in the drawing/planing
> phase. I don't see how it can be out this year. Probably 2015, but that is my own guess.
> ...


The Galileo is a bit further along then the early stages. But you might be entirely right that it could miss a 2014 release. 

There are factors in play that weren't in play in previous releases though. There were countless misunderstanding with the manufacturer on past releases. Less so now. 

I think that Gary's hyperdetailed blueprints of the TOS E avoided many of the problems that occurred with the 1/350th 1701 Refit. On that one misunderstandings on the part of the reds led to test shot after test shot after test shot having to be sent back and forth. Probably a combination of language barriers and not enough info conveyed and/or understood.

Gary is even putting more and more detail into these plans, given the size of the model, from what he's publicly stated.

So there is a good chance that that may speed up the time from blueprint to the final dye, with less test shots having to be corrected and sent back and forth.

At least let's hope so! I mentioned it very well perhaps ending up being released in 2015 because even if the extra blueprinting cuts down on the test shots being sent back and forth ad infinitum as what happened with the 1701 Refit - you really can't predict how smoothly or screwed up it will go when it comes to having stuff made in China.

And this is not a knock against any past model designers either. The original D-7's neck and scale were screwed up by the Chinese, even though the blueprints were accurate. 

All the reds had to do on the screwed up neck was mirror the non-screwed up side. Yet they couldn't even manage to do that! :drunk:


----------



## WOI (Jun 28, 2012)

If you could bring out the TOS D-7 Battlecruiuser in the 1/350 scale along
with the Ktinga Class,you wouldn't stop me from getting that kit!


----------



## Landru (May 25, 2009)

The thing is...adversary ships...they're just not as strong as the hero ones as far as sales go. 

I wouldn't mind a 1/350 K'Tinga, I mean it would make perfect sense (to us) as there are already two other models in the same scale in circulation. But to be honest here I see R2 either going for the Galileo kit (recognised hero ship) and/or a small three kit set like the afore mentioned movie set, or both. 
Particularly after they've JUST produced a large scale kit, I think they'll play it closer to home with one of the smaller models I just mentioned. Even after that even with success. I think a large scale K'Tinga may be a little unlikely, sorry guys.  I just wanna see a Grissom in styrene


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

But didn't Round 2 say they would do another 1/350 Trek kit at some point? Since another Enterprise isn't an option, what else is there? Reliant, D7, K'tinga, Grissom...

I'll be honest and say the Grissom holds no appeal for me. But that's just me.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Landru said:


> The thing is...adversary ships...they're just not as strong as the hero ones as far as sales go.
> 
> I wouldn't mind a 1/350 K'Tinga, I mean it would make perfect sense (to us) as there are already two other models in the same scale in circulation. But to be honest here I see R2 either going for the Galileo kit (recognised hero ship) and/or a small three kit set like the afore mentioned movie set, or both.
> Particularly after they've JUST produced a large scale kit, I think they'll play it closer to home with one of the smaller models I just mentioned. Even after that even with success. I think a large scale K'Tinga may be a little unlikely, sorry guys.  I just wanna see a Grissom in styrene










I've heard this before about people preferring the hero ships and I'd love to know where the evidence for that is. 
I think people just go for the ships they like (I know I do) and not whether they're the good guys or bad guys ships.

In fact I bet a lot of people prefer the bad guys (adversaries) ships.


----------



## DinoMike (Jan 1, 1970)

I'll bet a lot of it is also vendor bias. They probably buy the hero ships for distribution because that's the one THEY recognize from casual exposure to the show.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

The Grissom holds no appeal for me either. If they do another 350 scale I would prefer a D-7 or K'tinga, but that's just me. Besides maybe they should consider doing a 1000 scale K'tinga first before a 350.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

SUNGOD said:


> I've heard this before about people preferring the hero ships and I'd love to know where the evidence for that is.
> I think people just go for the ships they like (I know I do) and not whether they're the good guys or bad guys ships.
> 
> In fact I bet a lot of people prefer the bad guys (adversaries) ships.


This doesn't really constitute evidence, but John Lester of starshipmodeler.com once commented that for them, good guy ships sell better than adversary ships. Admittedly, that's just one vendor's experience. Your mileage may vary....


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

SUNGOD said:


> I've heard this before about people preferring the hero ships and I'd love to know where the evidence for that is.


Plain and simple sales figures. I don't have numbers, but PL said many years ago that the bad guy ships don't sell as well.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

How big would a 350 Grissom be anyway? It's a tiny ship. It may not even count as a "big model" project.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

John P said:


> Plain and simple sales figures. I don't have numbers, but PL said many years ago that the bad guy ships don't sell as well.


I have no doubt this may be true. I think its natural that most people's first choice of kit is the "hero" ship of the series/movie. But, if Round 2 is going to do another Trek ship in 1/350 -- and I hope they do -- and all three Enterprises that can be accomplished at that scale are already out, then they have few options left. As far as baddies go, the Klingons are the most universally recognized in popular culture aside from the Empire. They're not an obscure subject like the Breen or the Dominion, etc. And at 1/350, a K'tinga would offer the detail that would make a kit at that scale worth the money, IMHO.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

While I sure don't know what would be involved in the 350 K'Tinga Go/No Go decision, just some thoughts from comments I've noted:

1. Distributors need to be interested and place orders. Also, any possibility of large kit fatique with dealers? 

2. I believe Moebius indicated that manufacturing costs in China have increased fairly appreciably over these last few years (from a discussion whether a reissue of the TV version of the Seaview was going to happen). May well cost more now to produce the K'Tinga than the 350 TOS E.

3. Safe bet from the bad guy ship vs good guy discussions is that the 350 K'Tinga will not sell as well as the 350 TOS or Refit have.

4. Apparently these large kits are always a risk. Round 2 indicated that if one of the small repop kits with minor modifications fail its not too terrible. If one of these newly developed large kits fail, it could really jeopardize any more large kits being considered.

5. Beyond a dedicated inner core of Trek modelers, any chance of Trek kit fatique (perish the thought, I know. Just asking ). Maybe running out of display room? 


I hope the 350 K'Tinga happens, but I don't see it as a kit that's definitely gonna happen. With the interest, I am sure though that Round 2 has/will give it strong consideration.


----------



## ssgt-cheese (May 31, 2000)

A 1/350 K-tinga kit will make a good choice for R2 from a money making point of view. Customers will buy 2 kits to built the STTMP and STVI versions, and accessory packs to make them. Just my 2 cents.

Mike


----------



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

Hunk A Junk said:


> But didn't Round 2 say they would do another 1/350 Trek kit at some point? Since another Enterprise isn't an option, what else is there? Reliant, D7, K'tinga, Grissom...
> 
> I'll be honest and say the Grissom holds no appeal for me. But that's just me.


I haven't heard of a committment to do more 1/350th scale Trek subjects. Last I heard said on the subject was prior to Christmas, when it was said that they would have to see what the holiday sales of the TOS E 1/350th were they could consider planning to do another 1/350th.

Didn't ever hear what those sales were like, but unless they were over moon spectacularly high, chances are they may still want to generate more revenue from the kits they are currently making before wanting to lay out the cash on another 1/350th tooling.

Just an estimated guess.

Also, one thing to consider, in a vacuum perhaps an adversary ship is not as valuable as a hero ship.

But we aren't talking a Kazon Torpedo here.
The D-7 is probably the second most popular, Trek kit ever,
among Trek fans in general and long time builders of the 1/650th in particular. 
And the K'Tinga isn't too far behind.

Most people who want and/or have bought a 1/350th TOS E and a 1/350th Refit are chomping at the bit for a D-7 and K'Tinga. I personally don't know too many people on the boards and elsewhere who have those who wouldn't buy both as soon as they were available.

I think R2 has already generated a tremendous demand for both a 1/350th D-7 and K'Tinga simply due to the fact that they've already got the TOS E and Refit E out in those scales.

It would be borderline crazy and wasteful to not cash in on that pent up interest and demand by making both the D-7 and K'Tingas available. And I doubt they will screw up and not cash in on that demand.

Only question I believe is when.


----------



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

Landru said:


> The thing is...adversary ships...they're just not as strong as the hero ones as far as sales go.
> 
> I wouldn't mind a 1/350 K'Tinga, I mean it would make perfect sense (to us) as there are already two other models in the same scale in circulation. But to be honest here I see R2 either going for the Galileo kit (recognised hero ship) and/or a small three kit set like the afore mentioned movie set, or both.
> Particularly after they've JUST produced a large scale kit, I think they'll play it closer to home with one of the smaller models I just mentioned. Even after that even with success. I think a large scale K'Tinga may be a little unlikely, sorry guys.  I just wanna see a Grissom in styrene





SUNGOD said:


> I've heard this before about people preferring the hero ships and I'd love to know where the evidence for that is.
> I think people just go for the ships they like (I know I do) and not whether they're the good guys or bad guys ships.
> 
> In fact I bet a lot of people prefer the bad guys (adversaries) ships.


To me the _either_ hero _or_ adversary question is sort of a false choice.

Do you want the TOS E or the D-7?

Do you want the Refit E or the K'tinga?

Fact is, we already have both the TOS E and the Refit E in 1/350th.

So there is no longer any _either_ question to be asked.

I believe better questions to ask would be:

Is there anyone who buys a 1/350th Refit Enterprise who wouldn't also buy a 1/350th K'Tinga?

Is there anyone who buys a 1/350th TOS Enterprise who wouldn't also buy a Klingon D-7?

Is there any other Trek ship doable in 1/350th scale that they would prefer to see before those two Klingon ships, hero or adversary?

Personally I'm willing to bet the answer to all three of those questions is no.


----------



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

DinoMike said:


> I'll bet a lot of it is also vendor bias. They probably buy the hero ships for distribution because that's the one THEY recognize from casual exposure to the show.


I doubt vendor bias is wagging the dog.

But even if they could, if it were a case of them only wanting kits they are familiar with, the D-7 has been out there for only a couple of years less then the TOS E.

And while it may be true that most hero ships sell better then the adversary kits, when the two kits in question are the D-7 and K'Tinga, 

I'm willing to bet that those two would sell better then any of the Trek hero or other adversary kits that are doable in 1/350th. Even the Grissom.

It's a question of what's left to make that can be practically made at 1/350th scale,

and how popular the Klingon D-7 and K'Tinga would be compared to all of those remaining kits.

After the D-7, K'Tinga, some other possibles are TOS Romulan Bird of Prey, Grissom, Reliant, Movie Bird of Prey, 

perhaps John P and others can list more. But I doubt any of them would sell better then the D-7 or K'Tinga now that the 1/350 TOS E's and Refits are out there.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> To me the _either_ hero _or_ adversary question is sort of a false choice.
> 
> Do you want the TOS E or the D-7?
> 
> ...





Good points. Even if hero ships sell better the Klingon battlecruiser must be near the top of many a Trek fans list and certainly higher up than many of the lesser known hero ships.....seeing as the main hero ships of Trek have already been done anyway. The K'tinga certainly seems more desirable to Trek fans if this poll is representative.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

John P said:


> Plain and simple sales figures. I don't have numbers, but PL said many years ago that the bad guy ships don't sell as well.






Might be true I don't know. Maybe that's just Trek as the most famous ships in Trek (apart from the Klingon Battlecruisers) are the hero ships anyway.

Again the Klingon Battlecruisers might not be as popular as the main Enterprise variants but I bet they're not far behind.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> Again the Klingon Battlecruisers might not be as popular as the main Enterprise variants but I bet they're not far behind.


I think that is true. The Klingon Battle Cruiser is just as iconic in its own right as the Enterprise. I understand the original battle cruiser sold very well for AMT. 

Some bad guy model kits have been bit unexciting (Monogram/Revell Cylon Base Ship) to exceptionally boring (AMT Death Star - worst attempt at a sci fi kit ever IMHO). 

Not so with the ever cool battle cruiser.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Sparky said:


> I think that is true. The Klingon Battle Cruiser is just as iconic in its own right as the Enterprise. I understand the original battle cruiser sold very well for AMT.
> 
> Some bad guy model kits have been bit unexciting (Monogram/Revell Cylon Base Ship) to exceptionally boring (AMT Death Star - worst attempt at a sci fi kit ever IMHO).
> 
> Not so with the ever cool battle cruiser.





I haven't got the Death Star but it looked awful with no detail at all and yes the Klingon Battlecruiser's iconic and one of the best known Trek ships.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> I haven't got the Death Star but it looked awful with no detail at all...


AMT's Death Star kit did have surface detail in the form of raised panels, but the patterns were no more accurate or appropriate than the raised panels on the hull of AMT's revised version of the Refit Enterprise and the "equatorial" trench was almost non-existent. They would have been better off selling a kit that consisted of two interlocking hemispheres, a parabolic dish to represent the superlaser, and a boat load of window decals.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Our friend Dreadnought built the Death Star one day at a HiWay Hobby modeling demo. Well, one hour. Maybe not even that long. When he was done he threw it to me across the room.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

John P said:


> Our friend Dreadnought built the Death Star one day at a HiWay Hobby modeling demo. Well, one hour. Maybe not even that long. When he was done he threw it to me across the room.


It looks like a basketball, why not toss it around .

Scale per Fantastic Plastic review is 1/1,000,000. Ok, very hard to see much detail at that scale but come on. 

http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/DEATH STAR PAGE.htm

Etrl had a thing for random engraved paneling apparently. No loss as far as the Death Star but it sure mucked up what would have been a nice repop for R2 the Smoothie Refit.


----------



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

Sparky said:


> I think that is true. The Klingon Battle Cruiser is just as iconic in its own right as the Enterprise. I understand the original battle cruiser sold very well for AMT.
> 
> Some bad guy model kits have been bit unexciting (Monogram/Revell Cylon Base Ship) to exceptionally boring (AMT Death Star - worst attempt at a sci fi kit ever IMHO).
> 
> Not so with the ever cool battle cruiser.



I want a Scorpion shuttle in 1/350th!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just kidding . . . :devil:

All kidding aside, point is they could do a lot worse in picking a 1/350th then a Klingon D-7 and K'Tinga. As you said, the original Klingon Battlecruiser is iconic in it's own right.

And I don't think anyone who has bought a 1/350th Refit or TOS Enterprise wouldn't buy both of them. So R2 already has a built in customer base for them.

Plus, what else is there left Trek-wise that could be done in 1/350th that would be more popular?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I would hope for a 1/350 K'Tinga over a D-7 just because the classic TOS D-7 is almost devoid of detail and painted windows. For a kit that large I want to have one with loads of detail and lighting possibilities- the reworked Motion Picture version, with the hull illumination, impulse engines and hull textures would be a lot of fun to build up...


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Richard Baker said:


> I would hope for a 1/350 K'Tinga over a D-7 just because the classic TOS D-7 is almost devoid of detail and painted windows. For a kit that large I want to have one with loads of detail and lighting possibilities- the reworked Motion Picture version, with the hull illumination, impulse engines and hull textures would be a lot of fun to build up...


To me, the D-7 studio model just didn't fully realize the potential of the design (no studio budget of course, all on AMT's dollar as I recall). The exciting challange on the D-7 is to make it more animated and developed. That what I am plotting for my eventual Atomic City D-7 build. Straight build is just too plain.

Usually everyone building the K-Tinga is trying to replicate its on screen appearance. With the D-7, you have the fun of using some creativity and taking it beyond the studio model. What would Matt Jefferies have added to or refined on his design if there had been additional time/money to do it? 

Arguably, a 350 D-7 a could potentially be a more satisfying build.


----------



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

Sparky said:


> To me, the D-7 studio model just didn't fully realize the potential of the design (no studio budget of course, all on AMT's dollar as I recall). The exciting challange on the D-7 is to make it more animated and developed. That what I am plotting for my eventual Atomic City D-7 build. Straight build is just too plain.
> 
> Usually everyone building the K-Tinga is trying to replicate its on screen appearance. With the D-7, you have the fun of using some creativity and taking it beyond the studio model. What would Matt Jefferies have added to or refined on his design if there had been additional time/money to do it?
> 
> Arguably, a 350 D-7 a could potentially be a more satisfying build.





Richard Baker said:


> I would hope for a 1/350 K'Tinga over a D-7 just because the classic TOS D-7 is almost devoid of detail and painted windows. For a kit that large I want to have one with loads of detail and lighting possibilities- the reworked Motion Picture version, with the hull illumination, impulse engines and hull textures would be a lot of fun to build up...


Checkout this poll here:


http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=403352


Jamie from R2 has seen the poll, and has told me via email that if they do do a 1/350th D-7 they'll definitely be considering doing TOS style windows that mirror the decals.

Not a commitment by any means, but R2's latest incarnation seems to be extremely mindful of fans' input.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Zombie_61 said:


> AMT's Death Star kit did have surface detail in the form of raised panels, but the patterns were no more accurate or appropriate than the raised panels on the hull of AMT's revised version of the Refit Enterprise and the "equatorial" trench was almost non-existent. They would have been better off selling a kit that consisted of two interlocking hemispheres, a parabolic dish to represent the superlaser, and a boat load of window decals.





It's a shame they couldn't have got the surface detail accurate but I wouldn't want to see just decals used. A mixture of maybe both in that scale.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Richard Baker said:


> I would hope for a 1/350 K'Tinga over a D-7 just because the classic TOS D-7 is almost devoid of detail and painted windows. For a kit that large I want to have one with loads of detail and lighting possibilities- the reworked Motion Picture version, with the hull illumination, impulse engines and hull textures would be a lot of fun to build up...






Same here. I've pretty much no interest in a D7 in that scale and especially as Revell have done a pretty decent larger scale one recently (again the Aztec panel lines can easily be filled in).

The larger scale is just perfect for the K'Tinga as it's the only way they can do justice to the detail.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

SUNGOD said:


> Same here. I've pretty much no interest in a D7 in that scale and especially as Revell have done a pretty decent larger scale one recently (again the Aztec panel lines can easily be filled in).
> 
> The larger scale is just perfect for the K'Tinga as it's the only way they can do justice to the detail.


I'd like to see the basic kit be the TMP version, then have Round 2 offer a Bonus Pack with alternate bridge, nacelles and photo etch for the STVI version. Add a light kit with front and rear photon torpedo effects and we got a winner! :thumbsup:


----------



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

SUNGOD said:


> Same here. I've pretty much no interest in a D7 in that scale and especially as Revell have done a pretty decent larger scale one recently (again the Aztec panel lines can easily be filled in).
> 
> The larger scale is just perfect for the K'Tinga as it's the only way they can do justice to the detail.


I have to disagree about Revell having done a "pretty decent larger scale".

Yes, 600th scale is bigger then 650th.

But not by much.

It's only about 8.33% larger then the 1/650th version, 

plus the windows seem to be an amalgamation of the Remastered and a later incarnation, the windows' size and placement being nothing like the TOS original effects decals.

But yes, I too would like to see the K'Tinga done, as do most of us.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Hunk A Junk said:


> I'd like to see the basic kit be the TMP version, then have Round 2 offer a Bonus Pack with alternate bridge, nacelles and photo etch for the STVI version. Add a light kit with front and rear photon torpedo effects and we got a winner! :thumbsup:








Instead of a bonus pack I think they'd be better off just doing what companies like Hasegawa do.................extra plastic parts to build different variants.

And yes a light kit would be a must. Can't remember if they've done a light kit for the Enterprises?


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I have to disagree about Revell having done a "pretty decent larger scale".
> 
> Yes, 600th scale is bigger then 650th.
> 
> ...






The Revell version is a bit of an amalgamation yes but a few modifications could probably make an accurate D7. I think a D7 is suited to a smaller scale anyway as it's surface is just smooth. 

I also think doing the K'Tinga in a smaller scale is pretty pointless as there's a lot of detail that can't then be included whereas it's much easier to do justice to a D7 in a smaller scale. I never forget comparing the old AMT K'Tinga to the one in STTMP (especially the close up of the bridge) and just tossing it to one side thinking it was pointless to even try making it look better.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

I cant imagine HOW the katinga is more popular than the RELIANT when the Enterprise/Reliant battlescene was the best in the star trek movies and yet to be equaled in my opinion.....can someone enlighten me


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

RMC said:


> I cant imagine HOW the katinga is more popular than the RELIANT when the Enterprise/Reliant battlescene was the best in the star trek movies and yet to be equaled in my opinion.....can someone enlighten me








Maybe people just think the K'Tinga looks cooler or that the Reliant (although different to the Enterprises's because of the nacelle arrangement) still looks very similar and they want the most famous Trek adversary ship done justice too instead of another saucer based Trek hero ship.

Also.......Khan might have the best or one of the best battle scenes in the Trek films but the opening of STTMP with the 3 Klingon ships is really cool. In fact I think the beginning of STTMP is the best out of all the films.

The K'Tinga's look great and the musical score is brilliant too.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> It's a shame they couldn't have got the surface detail accurate but I wouldn't want to see just decals used. A mixture of maybe both in that scale.


Well, that's the thing--it's essentially a 9" diameter sphere. Except for the superlaser dish and the trench, at that scale there really _isn't_ any surface detail.


----------



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

Zombie_61 said:


> Well, that's the thing--it's essentially a 9" diameter sphere. Except for the superlaser dish and the trench, at that scale there really _isn't_ any surface detail.


Though I agree that AMT probably could have done a better job . . .

I think the major issue the Death Star has when it comes to doing it as an accurate, mass produced kit is similar to the one that the Borg Cube shares.

While the original filming miniature was made by hand and had countless tiny surface details on the parts that were filmed,

neither the Death Star nor the Borg cube could very accurately be reproduced via standard molds - even if we were talking a _very_ large scale.

About the only way I could see those being reproduced with any degree of accuracy is not as a kit, but individually grown from a 3D model. But you would have to grow either the Death Star or Borg Cube one at a time. And again, it wouldn't be a mass produced kit. Even if, for example with the Death Star you had to print one half of the thing at a time, each would have to be an individual printing. 

Not to mention the time and expense of creating an accurate 3D model.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Speaking of super duper sized adversaries, V'ger would actually be a rather cool model. Lighting it to match how it looked in TMP would be fun. Add a 
luminecent cloud background and light it too.

http://steve-burg.deviantart.com/art/V-ger-Rear-View-178412334

Chances of a V'ger model ever being developed as a model are close to none but fun to think about painting and lighting possibilities. Maybe add a microsized Refit Enterprise for fun.


----------



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

SUNGOD said:


> The Revell version is a bit of an amalgamation yes but a few modifications could probably make an accurate D7. I think a D7 is suited to a smaller scale anyway as it's surface is just smooth. . . .


You could say the exact same thing about Jefferies' TOS Enterprise.


----------



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

Sparky said:


> Speaking of super duper sized adversaries, V'ger would actually be a rather cool model. Lighting it to match how it looked in TMP would be fun. Add a
> luminecent cloud background and light it too.
> 
> http://steve-burg.deviantart.com/art/V-ger-Rear-View-178412334
> ...


The core might be doable at a small scale.

Producing the entire V'ger as a model might be outside of R2's budget limits though.


----------



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

Plus you would have to get those clouds to orbit the whole thing.

What were those silly Klingons thinking attacking something that big? :freak:


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The core might be doable at a small scale.
> 
> Producing the entire V'ger as a model might be outside of R2's budget limits though.


Yeah, the core is what I'm thinking with clear parts. The cloud effect would be something like clear acylic panel with with a cloud image on it. Lighting behind the acrylic panel would produce the luminecent cloud. This is what I have imagined anyway. 

In the movie V'ger seemed mainly background and thus perhaps is often overlooked but the core is really a cool looking ship (or entity if you will). I remember rereading an article recently in an old Starlog or one of the mags covering TMP back in '78 -'79 that showed the V'ger studio model. The studio was fairly good size (looked around 15ft in length).


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Plus you would have to get those clouds to orbit the whole thing.
> 
> What were those silly Klingons thinking attacking something that big? :freak:


The orginal version of the TMP stated the cloud was 82 A.U. in diameter and was reduced in the Director's cut to 2 A.U.'s Whether a diameter of 82X the Sun-Earth distance or 2X, what in the world were the Klingons hoping to hit? 

Basically firing torpedoes came down to "Hey there large cloud thing, we here...obiterate us" :tongue:.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Zombie_61 said:


> Well, that's the thing--it's essentially a 9" diameter sphere. Except for the superlaser dish and the trench, at that scale there really _isn't_ any surface detail.










It's a tricky one but if you look at the Death Star you'll see the darker bits in between the lighter lines going over the entire surface. The only thing I suppose they could do is to replicate those lines accurately as engraved and then decals for the darker bits in between. Unfortunately it looks like AMT just made those lines up.

Otherwise the kit would just be a blank sphere. I know some of them would probably be out of scale but I'd personally prefer finely engraved little windows and then have the whole thing moulded in clear so it could be lit up from within.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> You could say the exact same thing about Jefferies' TOS Enterprise.





True of course but that still doesn't alter the fact that the K'Tinga would benefit much more from a larger scale kit when it comes to the K'Tinga's extra detail over the D7.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

The TOS E has the added detail of lighting, so the larger scale is worthy. It would be cool to see a D7 lit up as it might have been if budget allowed. Weathering and shading can really break up the blandness as well.

The 3-foot studio Death Star was detailed with speckles of paint, the only physical detail being the the super laser and the raised radial lines around it. A smooth kit with paint specs or decals could capture the look.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

robn1 said:


> The TOS E has the added detail of lighting, so the larger scale is worthy. It would be cool to see a D7 lit up as it might have been if budget allowed. Weathering and shading can really break up the blandness as well.
> 
> The 3-foot studio Death Star was detailed with speckles of paint, the only physical detail being the the super laser and the raised radial lines around it. A smooth kit with paint specs or decals could capture the look.








But that's a studio model. Many studio miniatures are rough and lack detail when you look close up as they're designed just to look good on film. A smooth kit would just look boring and even though it seems to be mainly us older folk building kits at the moment they obviously took younger folk into consideration as well with it.

As for TOS E and lighting that could easily be done on a smaller kit. The Bandai refit has that and it's only 1/850th.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

chuck_p.r. said:


> plus you would have to get those clouds to orbit the whole thing.
> 
> What were those silly klingons thinking attacking something that big? :freak:



today is a good day to die!

;-)


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> It's a tricky one but if you look at the Death Star you'll see the darker bits in between the lighter lines going over the entire surface. The only thing I suppose they could do is to replicate those lines accurately as engraved and then decals for the darker bits in between. Unfortunately it looks like AMT just made those lines up...


Presumably the "darker bits" were comprised of the surface details seen in the sequences where the X-Wings and TIE Fighters flew close to the surface of the Death Star, with the "lighter lines" representing surface areas devoid of such detail. Of course, here in the real world the dark and light segments were simply a way to give the Death Star some sort of surface detail so that it wouldn't look like just a big gray sphere. AMT definitely created the pattern of raised panels on their own, since their shapes don't match the surface patterns on the filming model.



SUNGOD said:


> ...Otherwise the kit would just be a blank sphere. I know some of them would probably be out of scale but I'd personally prefer finely engraved little windows and then have the whole thing moulded in clear so it could be lit up from within.


At 9" in diameter, even the smallest bit of window detail (or drilled windows) would be wildly out of scale. For a Death Star model to have windows illuminated from within, I think it would have to be at least 3' in diameter for the windows/lights to be even close to scale. By the way, the filming model for the first Death Star is reported to have been 120 cm in diameter (47.24").


----------



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

robn1 said:


> The TOS E has the added detail of lighting, so the larger scale is worthy. It would be cool to see a D7 lit up as it might have been if budget allowed. Weathering and shading can really break up the blandness as well. . . .


Agreed. I prefer the clean smooth hulls that Jefferies designed.

He didn't even like the idea of the penciled in gridlines, but since
gridlines were there I'll probably leave mine when I do a 1/350th.


----------



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

mach7 said:


> today is a good day to die!
> 
> ;-)


But really!

There has to be a better way to go out as a warrior.

That thing was humungous! 

And they couldn't even see what they were firing into!

They had about as much chance of stopping that thing with photon torpedos as I have of blowing up the Earth by shooting spitballs into the ground! 


Though I have to admit my first reaction to the scene was unrelated to Trek.

It was the thought, "Isn't that the guy from Taxi?"


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

The Klingons were not firing at V'ger or the energy cloud- they were firing at the approaching probe/ball-of-light. You watch the photorps traveling towards it on the display, how they do not stop or disrupt it, just disappear. The final surviving vessel fires it's rear facing photorp at the third V'ger probe just before impact.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Richard Baker said:


> The Klingons were not firing at V'ger or the energy cloud- they were firing at the approaching probe/ball-of-light. You watch the photorps traveling towards it on the display, how they do not stop or disrupt it, just disappear. The final surviving vessel fires it's rear facing photorp at the third V'ger probe just before impact.


On the rear firing torpedo, I certainly agree the ball was the target. Intially when they all three K'Tingas were firing, I see nothing but the cloud on their tactical and visual displays. Am I missing something?


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> But really!
> 
> There has to be a better way to go out as a warrior.
> 
> ...


And that's what happens when you pack a ship full of blood knights. Klingons -- long on cojones, short on sense.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

During the attack, Epsilon 9 says that a "power field" surrounds an alien vessel. I think it's safe to assume that's what the Klingons detected and what they're shooting at.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Zombie_61 said:


> Presumably the "darker bits" were comprised of the surface details seen in the sequences where the X-Wings and TIE Fighters flew close to the surface of the Death Star, with the "lighter lines" representing surface areas devoid of such detail. Of course, here in the real world the dark and light segments were simply a way to give the Death Star some sort of surface detail so that it wouldn't look like just a big gray sphere. AMT definitely created the pattern of raised panels on their own, since their shapes don't match the surface patterns on the filming model.
> 
> At 9" in diameter, even the smallest bit of window detail (or drilled windows) would be wildly out of scale. For a Death Star model to have windows illuminated from within, I think it would have to be at least 3' in diameter for the windows/lights to be even close to scale. By the way, the filming model for the first Death Star is reported to have been 120 cm in diameter (47.24").








Yes but you can only get an impression at that scale. As you say even drilled lights (which some people oddly prefer........can't for the life of me understand why) would be overscale so I think why not have neat little windows (however overscale) instead.

And that's not to say some windows on the Death Star can't be huge anyway.


----------



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

Hunk A Junk said:


> During the attack, Epsilon 9 says that a "power field" surrounds an alien vessel. I think it's safe to assume that's what the Klingons detected and what they're shooting at.


You and Richard are 100% correct, now that my feeble memory has been jogged.:freak:

However, I wouldn't be shooting at a probe or anything else sent out from something that ridiculously huge.

Contacting whatever is controlling something that big would seem to make more sense.

Firing on it's probe seems to make as much sense as a 4 foot tall quadriplegic starting a fight with an 800 pound gorilla.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Hunk A Junk said:


> During the attack, Epsilon 9 says that a "power field" surrounds an alien vessel. I think it's safe to assume that's what the Klingons detected and what they're shooting at.



I think the cloud is the power field in the movie.


http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/startrek01.html

Excerpt from the shooting script:

13 EXT. SPACE - ANGLE ON KLINGON VESSEL - TORPEDO HATCH (S) 13

The BRILLIANT PHOTON BLOBS of the torpedoes spurt from 
the tubes.

14 ANGLE ON KLINGON VESSEL (S) 14

A deadly PHOTON TORPEDO pattern racing away from the
Klingon and toward the Luminescent glow in the distance.

15 INT. KLINGON BRIDGE - TACTICAL GRID (O) 15

Three torpedoes are *heading directly toward the Cloud*.
Suddenly they glow briefly and *disappear long before
they reach their intended target*.

I like how the script references the "glowing Hell fire" of the photon tubes.


----------



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

Sparky said:


> On the rear firing torpedo, I certainly agree the ball was the target. Intially when they all three K'Tingas were firing, I see nothing but the cloud on their tactical and visual displays. Am I missing something?
> 
> Star Trek The Motion Picture 1979 Klingon Battle - YouTube


Looks like I was wrong about being wrong. Which I guess still makes me wrong at least once. :freak:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> ...Though I have to admit my first reaction to the scene was unrelated to Trek.
> 
> It was the thought, "Isn't that the guy from Taxi?"


Uhh, that was _Star Trek III_, not _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_.


----------



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

Zombie_61 said:


> Uhh, that was _Star Trek III_, not _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_.


You're right, of course. My actors-that-seem-out-of-place-in-Star-Trek-roles memory circuits were cross-wired! :freak:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> You're right, of course. My actors-that-seem-out-of-place-in-Star-Trek-roles memory circuits were cross-wired! :freak:


It _is_ somewhat amusing how little the Klingon makeup changed Lloyd's appearance.


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

I voted for the 1/1000 scale Enterprise-D. It would be great to eventually see all of the Enterprises at this scale, and I think this would be a great idea to revisit a ship and make it more accurate than the 1/1400 version that is nearly 30 years old.


----------



## [EAGLE] (Sep 8, 2012)

Richard Baker said:


> The Klingons were not firing at V'ger or the energy cloud- they were firing at the approaching probe/ball-of-light. You watch the photorps traveling towards it on the display, how they do not stop or disrupt it, just disappear. The final surviving vessel fires it's rear facing photorp at the third V'ger probe just before impact.



ROFL. Just had to say it...WRONG, there, Ricky. Like Han Solo, the Klingons fired FIRST.:wave:


----------



## oggy4u (Sep 27, 2007)

I believe R2 is considering a new K'tinga. My only evidence is the latest re-release of the Klingon K'tinga by R2- there are no upgrades or modifications !Just a new decal sheet. Other Star Trek re-releases, like the D7 ,have had some minor to major improvements in accuracy . The K'tinga which needs major surgery to be accurate has seen none of these upgrades. Perhaps R2 plans to start with a clean sheet rather than adding greebles and some extra parts to the current model. Or is this my wishful thinking?


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

You're the king of wishful thinking.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Some of the most of the awesome things in life start with wishful thinking.


----------



## oggy4u (Sep 27, 2007)

Some of the most of the awesome things in life start with wishful thinking

Thank you. Those of us who want a decent K'tinga must speak up. There are enough models of Federation ships, IMO.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

The K'tinga is not the only Trek kit R2 has reissued with no upgrades to the molds, nor will it be the last because it looks to me like that's the way they're going with the Defiant as well.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

And the exploration set has no changes.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

oggy4u said:


> Some of the most of the awesome things in life start with wishful thinking
> 
> Thank you. Those of us who want a decent K'tinga must speak up. There are enough models of Federation ships, IMO.









Looks like that's what people are doing.........plus the Eagle too.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

mach7 said:


> And the exploration set has no changes.


Except the decals. But what improvement could they make without a complete redo?


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

With 204 votes in, the numbers are fairly convincing for this forum. I didn't ask on other general forums, but would expect similar sentiments.

KTinga rules all with distinction. The Eagle however is an exceptional 2nd place contender that itself chomps on all other Trek options with 52 votes to all non-Ktinga Trek options of 58! Wow. That's nearly twice the votes of the third place competitor and nearly 4x that of 4th and 5th place holders -all of which are heavy, long-time fan faves.

*#1* 69 votes, KTinga
*#2* 52 votes for a big Eagle of one size and options or another
*#3* 28 votes, 1/350 Reliant
*#4* 16 votes, 1/350 (Big) Excelsior (1/537 would be sweet consolation!)
*#5* 14 votes, Other, which includes the 1/350 D-7 and 1/350 RBop amongst many

With 25 "Also-Rans"... Which is not to denigrate the faithful waiting on a 1/1000 1701-D. I think that is a likely winner in the long run if the "Big Kits" line moves forward with Round 2. 

There were other great ideas and longings expressed throughout these 11 pages. Many were more general, new models for R2; not specifically falling into the Big Kit mindset, but rather standard kits that R2 could likely pursue as a matter of course rather than specific investments.

It was great to get a read on how folks feel about the Big Kits idea! I hope Jamie and crew will push forward!


----------



## Landru (May 25, 2009)

I voted Excelsior but in light of the poll results, screw it! Give us a big K'Tinga!:wave:


----------

