# Revell Germany 1701 TOS Enterprise Contours . . .



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

I know a few of you have bought the Revell Germany 1701 TOS Enterprise.

Aside from the exageratted engraved hull lines(which could be puttied away,

how close are the contours of the ship compared to the production ship?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I did not buy one because the contours are terrible in my opinion. They pulled from many sources to produce this and one of those was the animated series. 
The Saucer is OK but the secondary hull is not very close at all. If it were not so expensive I would get one to kit bash into a different class vessel, but too much work to make it into a Constitution class...


----------



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

Richard Baker said:


> I did not buy one because the contours are terrible in my opinion. They pulled from many sources to produce this and one of those was the animated series.
> The Saucer is OK but the secondary hull is not very close at all. If it were not so expensive I would get one to kit bash into a different class vessel, but too much work to make it into a Constitution class...



Thanks Richard!!!

Could perhaps the contour problems be sculpt-corrected with
something like Aves?

Does anyone have any pictures they could post?

The more the better!


----------



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

Here's a couple of nice picks of the kit in this review:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/...revell-1600-uss-starship-enterprise-ncc-1701/


----------



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

Hi guys!

Question: I cannot find a scale on or in the box for the old AMT/Ertl Cuttaway TOS Enterprise.

I'm wondering if it might be the same scale/size as the Revell Germany TOS 1701.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

No, the cutaway is bigger.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

The AMT cutaway Enterprise kit is 1/650 scale.

The Revell Germany Enterprise is 1/500.

Larry


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

The 18" Enterprise is 1/650 scale. The cutaway is close to 1/500.

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/trek/trekscales.cfm


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

The Revell kit is a different size than both the old AMT TV kit and the cut away.

Contour issues aside, the Revell kit is quite nice. I really don't see any way to fix them yourself. And, replacing half of the kit with resin really wouldn't be fun or cheap either. 

I will just build the Revell kit as is. I like the model a lot. I know some people are disappointed in it, and I can see why. On the other hand, it is what it is... I can live with it and just have a nice looking, if less "accurate" model. The thing is, if the Revell kit were around in the 60s (instead of the AMT kit) chances are the show would have used the Revell kit as a filming miniature (just as they did with the AMT kit).


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Both the Revell D7 and Enterprise TOS are 1/600, slightly larger than there AMT counterparts. The Into Darkness Enterprise is 1/500, according to the box.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Boy, after just doing the R2 1/350th, that IS way off. Wow.


----------



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

Paulbo said:


> The 18" Enterprise is 1/650 scale. The cutaway is close to 1/500.
> 
> http://www.starshipmodeler.com/trek/trekscales.cfm


Thanks Paulbo!

The Cutaway scale and length is exactly what I was interested in! :thumbsup:






kdaracal said:


> Boy, after just doing the R2 1/350th, that IS way off. Wow.



As it comes out of the box, I totally and completely agree with you.




djnick66 said:


> The Revell kit is a different size than both the old AMT TV kit and the cut away.
> 
> Contour issues aside, the Revell kit is quite nice. I really don't see any way to fix them yourself. And, replacing half of the kit with resin really wouldn't be fun or cheap either.
> 
> I will just build the Revell kit as is. I like the model a lot. I know some people are disappointed in it, and I can see why. On the other hand, it is what it is... I can live with it and just have a nice looking, if less "accurate" model. The thing is, if the Revell kit were around in the 60s (instead of the AMT kit) chances are the show would have used the Revell kit as a filming miniature (just as they did with the AMT kit).


Agreed on all points. If the Cutaway had been the same scale and had the wrong windows but right contours, 
I would have considered laying one on top of the other and cutting the windows out of the Cutaway version, 
trouble and time aside. Might even have copied the parts of the one-of for those interested. Would have to 
have used the neck of the Revell since the connection points at the saucer are different(just as the earlier 
versions of the AMT and then smaller box versions were different).

But since they aren't the same size . . . 




djnick66 said:


> . . .
> 
> I will just build the Revell kit as is. I like the model a lot. I know some people are disappointed in it, and I can see why. On the other hand, it is what it is... I can live with it and just have a nice looking, if less "accurate" model. . . .


Agreed as well. Although I will say that if anyone goes to the Britmodeler link :

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/...revell-1600-uss-starship-enterprise-ncc-1701/

and scrolls down to the pic I am attaching,

It doesn't look nearly as inaccurate.

In the pic the oversized engraved lines have been carefully and fully filled
in.

Once that happens the model looks *entirely* different.

Check it out!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

As a variation on a theme, it looks like a fun model to build and put on display. As a strict interpretation of the Enterprise, I wouldn't want it. As a sister starship, I think it would make a great addition to the fleet. Just wish it didn't cost quite so much or I'd pick one up.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

The secondary hull doesn't look that bad to me - but that saucer! Yikes!!

If I had one, I'd probably look to fashion my own replacement saucer for it, though I'd just keep the bridge, B/C deck part and try to modify it on the replacement saucer.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

So I've taken a closer look at this kit and I'm thinking that it isn't as bad as I first imagined.

First things first… lets get my bias out on the table. I've always had a hard time getting motivated to build accurate kits. The 1/1000 and 1/350 TOS Enterprise models are great, but maybe a little too good for my taste.

What I like about the AMT/Round 2 Enterprise is that the builder can inject aspects of their skill and creativity into the build making it more accurate. Even then, the amount of options for changes means that builds don't always look alike based on the combination of things that the builder has decided to address. Also, different aspects of the Enterprise's design has differing levels of importance from one builder to the next, so we get a chance to see the Enterprise through other people's eyes with builds like these.

I'd most likely call my last build of the Round 2 reissue a good mid-point build, and it showed some of the aspects of the design that I considered important enough to modify. Similarly, *Trekkriffic*'s build showed aspects he considered important. And then you have those who go all out, and I'd usually hold Thomas Sasser's build (either this one or this set) as the extreme accuracy build example, but I think that *crowe-t*'s build has set a new standard in that department.

So after looking at the Revell Enterprise, I'm starting to think that it has the same potential that the AMT/Round 2 Enterprise does to let artists skills and abilities shine through, while letting us see the Enterprise through their eyes.



All that having been said…

The first thing I looked at was the overall proportions of the main elements. And even though I was working with photos, they seem to be quite good. This is a good thing as the proportions are generally going to be something that registers first when you first see the finished model and can often times be one of the hardest things to fix. So in that way, this model has a good foundation.

The primary hull's contours are obviously a problem. Here is a _quick-n-dirty_ comparison between my 11 foot hull contour and what I could gather about the Revell hull…








Yes, there is a lot to fix. Personally, considering how most models are viewed, I'd focus more on the top of the primary hull. The transition from the mound to the flat section is a problem because it effects the registry numbers, which is an element that catches people's eye when first viewing the model. And this was one of the first things I noticed when we started seeing completed builds of this kit.

Because the bridge/B/C deck structure is a separate part, fixing (or even replacing) the top primary hull surface doesn't look like that bad a fix. Infact, I'd most likely cut a "c" shaped piece of styrene and use it as a way of extending out the top contour. I'd be filling in the grid lines anyway, so those being covered by that piece wouldn't be much of a loss.

The second biggest problem is the housing for the deflector assembly at the front of the secondary hull. This is a problem that, while bad in that it draws a lot of attention, isn't so bad when looking to fix it. As it turns out, the inner rings are not part of the housing, so making a replacement part shouldn't be that big a task.

The last of the large scale issues is the underside of the primary hull. Unfortunately, this is also one of the most difficult to fix. Sanding can be used to hide the large flat edge, but the rest of the underside's contours are linked to the windows. And because this kit's main benefit is the ability to light it, one has to weigh making those changes verses having to replace the windows.

I think in the end I could make enough modifications in other aspects to let the underside primary hull go essentially _as-is_ (if lighting the model was the main goal).

This brings us to the smaller stuff… and this is where Revell's size choice is very helpful. At 1/600 scale, it is very close to the approximately 1/630 scale of the AMT kit. So a lot of existing third party parts can be used to fix/replace parts on the Revell kit.

The kit has it's problems, but like the 18" AMT/Round 2 kit and the 22" AMT/ERTL Cutaway kit before it, it still has a ton of potential. And I'm looking forward to seeing what people end up doing with it!

:thumbsup:


----------



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

Fantastic review, Shaw!!!

Thanks for you insights. :thumbsup:

How do the contours of the 22" Cutaway's saucer top and bottom,
and secondary hull compare?

I have a couple of those kits, what about grafting a partial, glued together
saucer top onto the Revell kit to fix the upper saucer slope?


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

The biggest problem with the cutaway's secondary hull is that it is too short. You need to add in about a quarter of an inch in length in front of the dorsal to get it to look right. Otherwise, the next biggest issue is the fantail undercut and the placement of the hangar deck. I ended up scrapping most of that to get it correct (which was why I wasn't worried about being able to do essentially the same thing on my Phase II Enterprise model).

This is what I ended up with back then…








The primary hull of the cutaway has some issues too. Mostly with the underside, and not too different from the Revell kit's issues. I haven't made a serious attempt to correct the cutaway's primary hull yet because I scratch built mine (because I was attempting to replicate the 33 inch Enterprise).

But here are the contours of the Revell and cutaway primary hulls compared to the 11 foot model…








So a fare amount of work is needed with either kit. But if you don't mine the flat rim on the cutaway, it can be made to match the DS9 5.5 foot model made by Greg Jein.

As for using elements from the cutaway primary hull to fix the Revell primary hull, that could work. Here are the contours of the two at about their real life scale to each other…








Again, work is needed, but not outside the realm of possibilities.


----------



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

Thanks once again for an incredibly thorough analysis!

I wouldn't try to use the cuttaway's secondary hull.

Have opinions about the Revell's secondary hull(deflector housing aside), 
once the lines are all filled in?


----------



## modelmaker 2001 (Sep 6, 2007)

If it were not so bloody expensive, I'd get the Revell Enterprise and use it to model other Starships similar to Enterprise like Farragut and Defiant. I figure that no two Starships are exactly alike, especially one that were built before Enterprise with hull numbers starting with NCC-16--


----------



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

Nothing wrong with that idea.

But I also think it's possible to get the kit close to the production model,
with the possible exception of the lower saucer's flater lip,
which according to Shaw is close in resemblance to Greg Jein's version.

That difference between the production version and Greg Jein's version
(as well Revell's) doesn't bother me too much as the flat version seems
more logical from a practical design standpoint, as well as the fact that
it's not all that noticable unless you were looking really hard at pictures of the 
production version, or had it sitting beside either a Master Replicas or 
R2 1:350th model.


----------



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

Shaw said:


> . . .
> 
> The primary hull's contours are obviously a problem. Here is a _quick-n-dirty_ comparison between my 11 foot hull contour and what I could gather about the Revell hull…
> 
> ...


I came across this picture that I think illustrates your point perfectly.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I came across this picture that I think illustrates your point perfectly.


Oh yeah.. looks like somebody sat on it.


----------



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

Here is a really great video that gives a good view of all the sprues, parts, etc that 
are in the Revell Germany kit.


----------



## WOI (Jun 28, 2012)

This doesn't look too bad for the Cutaway Kit and the Revell versions,they
could be fixed up,I was planning a major retooling project for the ones 
that I have anyway.They just need is a lot love and care and a lot of putting
your heart and soul into them tp really bring out the accurate versions in
all of them.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I came across this picture that I think illustrates your point perfectly.


Looks like they stopped the slope of the top of the hull one gridline panel too soon.


----------



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

J_Indy said:


> Looks like they stopped the slope of the top of the hull one gridline panel too soon.



Yep. I'm sure it could be fixed.

But as-is out of the box it looks more like a woman's hat 
then the top of the TOS E's saucer!


----------



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

Trekkriffic said:


> Oh yeah.. looks like somebody sat on it.


Sorta looks like a woman's gardening hat!!!!

BTWay, what putty did you use to fill your 1/350th gridlines, Trekkriffic?

Does anyone have experience using Aves Epoxy sculpt on plastic and resin?

Does it dry smooth and ungrainy?


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Aves Epoxysculpt works fine on plastic/resin. I used it to fill the gap between the B/C deck replacement and hull on my 22" cutaway (not to be built as a cutaway).

Before it is cured you can wet your finger and smooth it out over the surface. I still used Tamiya putty to surface it afterward though.

As Zombie said (tip of hat to Zombie) you should start sanding Aves about 2 hrs or so after applying it before it fully cures - because otherwise you are sanding a rock. 

Also, if you are looking to use it to re-contour the hull, I think it would take a significant blob of it - and that would make the primary hull pretty heavy (esp if you used it top and bottom).


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Sorta looks like a woman's gardening hat!!!!
> 
> BTWay, what putty did you use to fill your 1/350th gridlines, Trekkriffic?
> 
> ...


I used Perfect Plastic Putty on the gridlines Chuck. It's a water-based, non-shrinking fine surface putty with good adhesion. Dries in a half hour or less. I recommend putting it on fairly thck. Start off with 200 grit, it really will help knock it down before you finish off with finer grades. Then spray with a good scratch-filling primer; I used Duplicolor automotive lacquer based primer. Any holidays I found after priming I filled with Tamiya Basic Type putty before sanding some more, priming, sanding, yada-yada-yada... 


IMG_4106 by trekriffic, on Flickr


IMG_4135 by trekriffic, on Flickr


IMG_4137 by trekriffic, on Flickr


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Maybe you can replace a part or two with reinforced cardstock parts.

There is a classic E here:

http://jleslie48.com/gallery_models_scifi.html

A while back I saw this paper TOS Enterprise and wondered how it would look scaled up to 22" size.

There was no way it could come out like a styrene model, but I thought it might make a decent wrecked Constellation (why get a 22" cutaway only to chop it up...?)

Anyway, I already had a lot of building material on hand (some sheet styrene to reinforce parts, fiberglass resin, epoxysculpt, glue, really really really old casting resin, etc) so I figured I'd see how the primary hull came out before going any further.

The deformations caused by the paper actually work out ok as structural compromises for poor ol' Constellation.... 

If I ever bother to finish it, I'd probably chop it up to get the damage closer to what it looked like on screen. Or maybe not. I could get it to where her power plants are deactivated and she's taken the first hit or two, but not to full wreckage....

Dunno if I'll try and finish it - I was just curious....


----------



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

Shaw said:


> The biggest problem with the cutaway's secondary hull is that it is too short. You need to add in about a quarter of an inch in length in front of the dorsal to get it to look right. Otherwise, the next biggest issue is the fantail undercut and the placement of the hangar deck. I ended up scrapping most of that to get it correct (which was why I wasn't worried about being able to do essentially the same thing on my Phase II Enterprise model).
> 
> This is what I ended up with back then…
> 
> ...


Another question:

How do the 18" R2 re-release model's curves match up against the Revell Germany's curves,

at actual kit size?

Some of the shot's I've seen of the underside of the new R2 re-release suggest they've softened the underside's "lip," or perhaps it's just a 
trick of the angles of the shot's I've seen?

I just pulled the trigger and ordered a Revell kit from England, and one of the Tholian version I picked up on Ebay fairly cheaply.

I just won't get the one from across the pond for awhile though . . .


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

IIRC R2 did not alter the lower saucer section, it should be the same as on the earlier releases


----------



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

You are probably right, I just saw one of the shots for their Tholian version that looked like the lip was smoother.

It's probably just the angle the shot was taken from, plus whoever built the
display model for their website shots might have sanded the edge himself 
rather then built her as-is out of the box.

I'll know by tommorrow as I have a Tholian Version kit arriving then.

Just will have to wait considerably longer for the Revell kit.

since the Revell kit is only .9" or so longer, I'm guessing the saucers on
both aren't that much wider then one another.

If the 1/650th's hull is a close match to the filming miniature's contours,
I plan on using the 1/650th's upper and perhaps lower saucer pieces to
correct the Revell Germany's parts.

Then all that will be left is lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots
and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots . . .

did I say "lots"?

. . . of puttying and sanding 

and then the saucer section should no longer
look like the Elephant man after being thrown face first through his
windshield after a car accident. . .


----------



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

Ordered the PE set for the Revell Germany kit.

If anyone else is interested, they can find it here:
http://www.paragrafix.biz/product_detail.asp?MainCat=Subject&SubCat=blank&PPartNum=PGX157#photos

Anyone know the best paint for photoetched parts?

Should the surface be specially prepared and or washed to accept paint?


----------



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

I bought a 1/600 Revell TOS E from this seller in Great Britian:

http://stores.ebay.com/Model-Hobbie...H_TitleDesc=1=&submit=Search=&_sid=121240575=

He provided me with a Royal Mail tracking number which also worked
on USPS.com once it landed here in the states.


I bought it on the 18th of November and he shipped on the 19th.

It just arrived safely from the above vendor yesterday! 

About 12 days total. Not really long at all if any of you remember
buying Trek models from comic ads the Johnson Company used to run in
so many of the comics back in the day. When the said "please allow 6 to 8
weeks for delivery," they meant it! 


So it takes that seller about 12 to 16 days to ship to a residence here in the US.

Given prices elsewhere his are reasonable and he answers emails fairly promptly during business days/hours.

Don't forget Great Britian is at least 6 hours ahead of US time, 7 or more if you are in the Central Time Zone or further West.

Let him know you heard about him on Hobbytalk, maybe if enough people order from him in the future he might consider giving members a discount, just a guess but it can't hurt to ask.

I paid 48.14 shipping included in US dollars for my 1/600 TOS E. The 1/600 Revell Klingon TOS Battlecruiser currently costs $30.60 US Dollars, plus $7.11 US shipping. About $37.71 total for the Klingon,
given what the exchange rates are at the moment



While 12 days may seem a long time to some, many people I checked that were
selling them here in the US were sold out, and all of them wanted more money
for the model.

And not just for the model in many cases - they were asking between a buck or less 
and in most cases even more money then it took to ship from Britian.

So the 12 days wait wasn't a big deal for me.


----------



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

Shaw said:


> So I've taken a closer look at this kit and I'm thinking that it isn't as bad as I first imagined.
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...


The deflector dish isn't so hot either.

I'm currently working on the upper saucer right now.

Could you perhaps give me an analysis of what's off about the deflector dish housing?

Won't probably get to it for awhile, but I'd love your input Shaw, or anyone else who would like to comment.


Fixing the upper saucer isn't as easy as I had imagined. You can't just add to the saucer, as the sharp bulge needs to be removed, which means the center of the saucer has to be cut out entirely and replaced.

But I'm getting there. I believe I've got the contour correct. Will have to make a trip to my local hobby shop though for some really thin styrene sheets though for the final blending.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I'll make essentially a paper model of the deflector assembly at that scale for you to use as a comparison. Hopefully I'll have it done this afternoon after work.


----------



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

Thanks!

Can't ask for anything more then that! :thumbsup:


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

This should work to make a deflector assembly at the proper scale for this model... assuming that it is 1/600th, these are the patterns I used for my 1/500th scale model scaled down to 1/600th.


_Deflector Assembly Patterns (PDF)_​


----------



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

Shaw said:


> This should work to make a deflector assembly at the proper scale for this model... assuming that it is 1/600th, these are the patterns I used for my 1/500th scale model scaled down to 1/600th.
> 
> 
> _Deflector Assembly Patterns (PDF)_​



Thanks yet again, Shaw!

It looks to be only one page though.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

It is... I did it as a PDF to hopefully preserve the scale (it should print on an 8.5x11 sheet at 100%). Cutting out the patterns and rolling them up should give you the rings of the assembly and the outer shell at 1/600th scale. Or you could do what I did, which was use the patterns to cut styrene to make the rings and outer shell.

I'll see what I can come up with for the dish... most "accurate" dishes are based on the restored model's part (which makes them too wide).


----------



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

So what should the thicknesses be at 600th scale if I were to get some sheet styrene?
Was planning a trip to my LHShop.

Your deflector looks perfect from what I can tell!


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks!

I'd think that 0.040" should work well, though you could get away with 0.020" with primer and paint. Based on the x-rays of the original model, the parts are pretty thin to begin with.


----------

