# My 1/537 Excelsior Sketches



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

[November 23/09
This is a third edit of my original start to this thread, done to repost my updated “final” versions of my 1/537 Excelsior sketches. Final in quotation marks because I know that they’re not, that with any luck a lot of you out there will spot mistakes, add new information, make corrections. And there is a Rule of the Universe that says whenever anyone spends upwards of 60 hours making their own drawings of something, within days of finishing someone else will post on the Net or publish in The Art of ST Vol 2 the actual ILM blueprints of said subject.
My reposts are of new scans of my drawings. Anyone who was here before will know that my original attachments were made on my home scanner and consisted of 11 million sheets of paper that you'd have to print and tape together or download and photoshop together to make something whole. There was the inevitable scanner distortion at the edges of the pages and I even managed to miss scanning a vertical slice of one side view. So I took my drawings into a professional copy shop and for $27 they scanned both my Excelsior drawings and my Spindrift blueprint. I've taken the pdfs and converted them into much, much smaller jpgs for posting here. If anyone wants giant pdf versions and has high speed, pm me and I'll see what I can do. Interestingly, the quality of the big pdfs isn't much better than what I hope to post here.] 

A note on my thinking about scale:

I started this out of my frustration detailing the Ertl Excelsior kit. I had built it years ago upon its initial release and recently discovered a few new inaccuracies to fix, and remembering how much work went into that little tiny model and how much more was going into it, thought yet again that it would be just as easy to scratch build a larger version. Wondering at just how big a 1/537 Excelsior would be, and wanting to create an “accurate” set of drawings of the thing, I set about first enlarging all the pictures I had of the overall Excelsior to a size based on a primary hull two decks thick at its edge. I matched that thickness to the edge thickness of the Ertl’s 1/537 Enterprise Refit. I came out much longer than I had expected. (There are plenty of pictures and drawings and schematics out there, but nothing definitive re: the size of the ship. The issue is further confused by the fact that the Excelsior miniature was built to the same size as the Enterprise Refit, so it ends up in all sorts of places like spacedock, looking the same size as the Refit.)

The Excelsior’s primary hull has an indent on top and a third set of windows, presumably a third deck, extending almost to the edge, and I used these levels to make a saucer edge thickness as thin as it could possibly be, while maintaining the Refit’s deck spacing. 

Still a huge spaceship, much longer than any of the estimates from Trek “technical manuals”, both studio licensed and fan produced. I then enlarged Doug Drexler’s cutaway of the Excelsior to the size I was settling on and found a number of size matches with the Refit that reinforced the feeling that I was on the right track. The size I finally settled on was 45 3/8", or a 2000' Excelsior. The early ILM concept of the Excelsior was for a ship 1500' long, but at that length, the Excelsior cannot keep both its profile and the number of decks delineated by windows.

Also at this length, all of the following match the 1/537 Refit: 
-the phaser platforms are the same size
-the hangar bay doors are the same height
-the lettering is the same size
-the RCS triangles are the same size
-the primary hull is the same thickness both at the 2 deck edge and overall
-the blue panels on the bottom of the saucer are almost the same size
-the windows are the same size
-the Drexler rendition of the shuttle scales perfectly
-the Drexler # of decks fits and matches the windows
-the bridge on the NCC version is almost exactly the same size as the Refits
-the sensor/deflector dish assembly can be identical


It’s all circumstantial evidence, true, but it’s enough to convince me. 

Once the sizes of various familiar things seemed to make sense, and I had scaled the sketches to fine tune the overall ship, I started to Photoshop photos of various parts of the ship to match the outlines and add the details.

There were a few constants: the distance between the primary and engineering hulls, the distance between the impulse exhausts and warp nacelles, and maybe two others. The rest was trying to make everything work.

I expected photos to have distortion along one axis relative to another. I never expected that a photo could be distorted in two opposite directions along even the same axis. I had no idea that the same photo downloaded from two different sites could be distorted in different directions. The angle of the subject, the lens, the camera, the processing, the scanning, the printing - anything and everything can distort a photo. Matching photos to scale drawings or trying to make scale drawings from photos is so insanely difficult I don't think I would have started this if I knew how long and frustrating it would be. To minimize such distortions, for details, I used multople photos and/or multiple angles wherever I could and I cropped as small an area as I could use from each source.

Overall, I think I’ve come pretty close. For the overall shape, I estimate my error to be in the +/-2% range. The engine nacelles might be just a shade too tall, and if just a 1/16" were taken off the glowing sides of the nacelles would exactly match the height of the glowing sides of the nacelles on the Refit Enterprise. That would make sense to me.

The nacelles might be 1/4" longer than they should, and the engineering hull might be 1/4" longer than it should, (just a nagging impression) but I don’t think so. I believe I’ve nailed this sucker. Otherwise I wouldn’t be wasting your time by posting these.

You could shrink these sketches by 10% and leave room for all the decks and their corresponding windows. You might try shortening it a bit more to bring down its length, but then you’d alter the profile. 
In the end, it’s all in the eye of the beholder. 

Aside from a few details like the width of the impulse deck or the shape of the neck, the Ertl kit, tho so horribly tiny, seems overall to be a very accurate replica. In fact, if you scale up any part of the Ertl kit by 2.47 times, you will come very close to these dimensions.

A note on sources: I’ve restricted myself as much as I could only to the ILM-built NX or NCC 2000. Virtually every picture that shows an Excelsior hanging by wires (and those are the majority of the clear pictures) are of Greg Jein’s re-build. I tried not to use any details from those photos unless absolutely necessary, as much of the detail isn't accurate and I am trying to keep as close to the original as possible. I’ve found few photos of the port side windows so I based my interpretation of the port side engineering hull window placement on the flyby of the NCC 2000 in ST6. I used the Ertl model only when confounded with how to represent certain details as they appear on compound angles. As far as my attempts at representing complex details on compound surfaces, forgive my crudeness - a draftsman I am not. 

Beside hoping to have errors spotted by Excelsior experts, my only other goal for posting these is to provide something here that might help other scratch builders or detailers. There are eight sheets in total. These are the first:


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

A couple more:


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

This sure beats having to put a jigsaw puzzle of separate sheets together into one view! None of my other posts below matter any more. Hope someone finds these useful. 
Now the last of them:


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

Very nice!!!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

delete post


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

delete post


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

So far, it looks very good. Much better than I could do, regardless. 

I can't access the site from work, but Ex Astris Scientia has a starships section which should help out a bit. They've got quite a few different _Excelsior_-class pics in their gallery.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Wow, those look like a great start.

I drew the Excelsior back in between 1989 and 1991 so I could make a model of her. My original drawings were of how the model originally looked, and then i modified them after the release of Star Trek VI (when the model was modified).

Of course this was pre-internet, and I had very few references to work from... basically, just a handful of published photos. Still, it was better than anything else I could find. And as this was before the first of the kits were released, it was the only way to build an Excelsior model back then.

I sold the original vellums (setup as a one sheet) to help pay for school. Here is a photo of it (sadly, I no longer have any copies myself)...


_Click to enlarge_​
I've been studying the recent photos of the miniature from before it was auctioned off, it looks like you've done a nice job so far.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

delete post


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

The bridge housing on the nx version is just a simple and plain looking dome that looks to be pretty much flat on top.


----------



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

Very nice! I spent months doing this same thing myself back in about 1998 for a friend's project. BTW, according to the design team at ILM who created the ship, it was 1500 feet long -- not 500 meters as many people seem to attest for some reason. It's exactly half again as long as the movie-era Enterprise. 

A size/scale comparison chart was created for ST:III by ILM artist Nilo Rodis-Jamero and it clearly shows the Enterprise at 1000 feet and the Excelsior at 1500 feet. This was published in at least one magazine at the time.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Star-art: I don't know. That would make it 25% smaller than I'm proposing. And I've already listed all the reasons this size works. Here's another: a few days ago, I took Andy Probert's cross-section sketch of his hangar/cargo bays and reduced it to 1/537, placed the outline over my sketch of the 2000's hangar bay, and this is how they compare. Note that the height of the hangar bay doors on both is identical. I wasn't planning for it to happen that exactly, it just did. 
25% smaller would make everything mighty tight, if not impossible to reconcile. Just for the # of decks alone to work, I wouldn't think there could be more than a 5% difference. As far as I can tell, I think the overall outline of my sketch is within about 2%. Of what the 2000 should be.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

delete post


----------



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

The Lakota and what you are calling the "2000" (i.e. NCC 2000 from _ST:VI_) are the same model. The Lakota is what the model looked like after it's facelift for _Star Trek: Generations_ where it was converted into the NCC-1701-B. The engineering hull has been modified because of the addition of the structures on either side. This destroyed the original deflector area as well.

I wasn't aware they changed the windows between _ST:III_ and _ST:VI_. Why would they do that? The other changes were relatively minor, but messing with the window layout is a lot of work because it could require a repaint. They don't do things like that unless there is a good reason.

The best images do seem to be whatever photos we can get from the making of _ST:VI_.

Hope that helps!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

delete post


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

looking at screen shots on http://www.stguardian.to/http://www.stguaridan.to/ the left and right side of the enginring hull appear to have different window patterns.
Also Greg Jiens model looks to have a different window pattern as well.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

delete post


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Irishtrek! Thanks for that link to stguardian! There a couple of just perfect side views there that I can play with - redo some of those windows.
Do you think the 2 sides can be THAT different? However, it does seem to be the only logical conclusion. 
My electric eraser is getting a serious workout...


----------



## Pedro (Mar 15, 2007)

There are some very clear screen captures from ST-III(?) at http://www.st-bilder.de/ which clearly show the secondary hull window locations, and some decent shots of the NX bridge as well. I think everything you need for accurate window placements (at least on the NX) is there.

Oh, and I should mention that I love your drawings and hope to use them for a major scratchbuild project soon.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Starseeker, in a another post you mention a concern about the windows, well there are 2 sets of windows in between each manuvering thruster and they go all the way to the front of the saucer.
On a side note thanks Griff for fixing that link!!


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I've read that they rescaled the Excelsior between STIII and VI, shrinking it. (I can't find a reference, though.) This would explain the changes to windows. (The bridge change can be adequately explained by the change of set: the NX2000 and NCC2000 had very different bridge sets, which called for different size domes and exterior details.)
Now if someone could explain the change from the attractive tail curvey window-like thingies on the NX to the ugly box thingie on the NCC...


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

March 31/07
The portside windows were very difficult to estimate. There are a couple shots of the port side ILM miniature but they show only a couple of windows. The windows on the Lakota's top level of the engineering hull seem to be a good match, so I used those (in the drawing, the windows I'm reasonably sure of are filled solid). The other windows are from the flyby of the NCC 2000 in ST6, superimposed on the deck levels. Best I can do...


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Starseeker, you mentioned a pair of oval shaped indents on the sides of the secondary hull? If they are toward the front and just below the neck they are photon torpedo tubes.


----------



## Pedro (Mar 15, 2007)

starseeker: Yes, I know which photos are the Jein Excelsior. I actually took those photos myself, they were originally published on my site at http://www.shiporama.org/excelsior.htm. (it's actually a copy of the model, not the lit version used for filming, but it was built/painted by Greg).

The pictures I'm refering to that show the windows are screen captures from DVD. STIII and IV both had some good shots:
http://www.st-bilder.de/html/star_trek_auf_der_suche_nach_m.html
http://www.st-bilder.de/html/star_trek_zuruck_in_die_gegenw.html

Of particular interest are these pictures:
http://www.st-bilder.de/datein/bilder/kino/ST_3/V2/gallery/B_KINO_3_055.jpg
http://www.st-bilder.de/datein/bilder/kino/ST_4/V2/gallery/B_KINO_4_026.jpg
http://www.st-bilder.de/datein/bilder/kino/ST_4/V2/gallery/B_KINO_4_108.jpg
http://www.st-bilder.de/datein/bilder/kino/ST_4/V2/gallery/B_KINO_4_109.jpg

Hope this helps!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

You might be able to kitbash some of the components from a PL refit.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

irishtrek said:


> You might be able to kitbash some of the components from a PL refit.


It's the Rail Gun and Vader Tie Fighter parts that will be interesting to see kitbashed.


----------



## Pedro (Mar 15, 2007)

Are there Tie Fighter or other known kitbash parts on the studio Excelsior?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

You all remember that shuttlecraft seen moving around inside the spacedock in ST III? It looks as if it has 2 intakes from an F-16 under its belly.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

Pedro said:


> Are there Tie Fighter or other known kitbash parts on the studio Excelsior?


Yep!
The cockpit hatch is on the top front of the warp engines. The rail gun kits have parts used in the recessed areas.

The rumor is that only 3 or 4 kits were used to detail the Excelsior, and that it stayed on the ship after the upgrades to the B, and then to the Lakota.

Here is a shot showing the Vader hatch on the Lakota.









Here is the part on the Excelsior and an inverse photo to help see it a little better.









and


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

That's it, that's it! It's been driving me crazy trying to remember where I knew that part from! Thought it might be a gun turret some a WW2 German aircraft or something. 
Meanwhile, yesterday I finished (?) the last of the Excelsior sketches, and over the next couple days hope to have them all posted (replacing the older sketches attached to my previous posts on this thread as well as adding the new ones). It's taken a while to make sure that everything matches in all directions but finally it does, but now it's been so long since I started I'm busy second-guessing myself and so I'm going back thru the whole process re-assuring myself that everything matches everything I've seen and calculated. Which it does.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

Starseeker
Glad I could be some help.
I had just got 3 of the kits off of the Bay to use for a studio K'tinga build when I noticed the match. The Vader kits front cockpit control panel turns up on the bottom of Spock's Shuttle from ST:TMP. 
I'm still working on the rail gun parts id. 

I hate studio builds where 1 kit gives 1 part so this was a nice supprise!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Thanks especially Irishtrek and Pedro for the links. (Are you Pedro as in Shiparama? If so, another big thanks. Your site has been tremendously useful to me over the years!)
Again, hope these are useful.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

You're welcome there starseeker!! And thank you for sharing your drawings with the rest of us, they will come in handy if and when I get around to building my own 537 or 350 Excelsior.


----------



## Pedro (Mar 15, 2007)

Yes, Shiporama is my site...sheesh, I haven't update it since almost 9 years ago! I'm glad I could be of help, the drawings look great! I'm working on a Lunar Models kit, which requires about 90% rebuilding...not sure if I'll finish it, but these will certainly help!

Interesting about the Tie Fighter bits, I don't know why I never caught that before.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Am nI correct in asumming these drawings when printed out ar a scale of 537?
Also where on the 2000 did you find the main ganway hatch?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Damn, I forgot to put a scale on the rest of those - altho I did put a scale on the stbd side view that might give you help in determining how to print them out at the "proper" size. Tho really the proper size should be any size you think is right. 
I put the hatches on the detail sheet a) to show that they can be exactly the same size on the Refit and b) because like the TOS E there seems no way in and out of the Excelsior. My suspicion is that they would have been about 2/3 - 1/2 the size of the Refit miniature's and ILM didn't bother with them because they wouldn't be seen. ?? And c) because I intend to place them somewhere on mine. 
I'll put the scales on the other views as I correct them. Already noticed two omissions. I left off one of the rectangles in the recessed area on the bottom of the flat portion of the engineering hull... and now I can't remember the other. Another similar silly omission. A few days away from staring at them and maybe I'll be ready to go back and look at them with clear eyes.


----------



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

That is OUTSTANDING -- especially considering you were working strictly from photos/screencaps and that it's pencil on paper. Man, if you can do this, just imagine the fun you could have with a CAD or computer illustration program.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

delete post


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Beautiful workmanship... I don't believe I've ever seen their rival. :thumbsup:


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

delete post


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

While looking for any good pictures I might have of the Refit Enterprise, I stumbled across a really nice picture of the NX2000 in Spacedock, one that better showed some panel lines on the engineering hull. Changing the panels lines necessitated me moving some windows around. Everything is a better match to the few photos of the NX I have. I've decided to leave off the engineering hull panel lines that I can't see, rather than use any of Greg Jein's. The two rearmost vertical panel lines on the engineering hull I'm not sure about. I can see something there, but the position is getting pretty iffy. I decided to put them on the drawing for the time being. 

There are some kind of glowing lights/windows on the bridge. The front view of the 2000 shows 3 circles that I can confirm in photos. The additional two "windows" in this view - well, something bright is definitely there. There is also a third something bright up there, too, but I've left it off as I don't know if its on the dome or the surround.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

The images of the Excelsior built by Greg Jein has window placment that does not match up with those on the originale filming model as well as a couple of extra windows on the secondary hull just in front of the photon torpedo tube on the starboard side. Don't know about the port side though.


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

I think your drawings of the Excelsior are the best I have ever seen. I too have been researching this ship for the last year and there are soooo many confilcts from reference to reference, it has nearly worn me out. I want to build her in 1/350th scale, whick I believe from reading this thread (which makes perfect sence to me) would place her at about 66 inches long. This of course goes against what has been accepted as "canon" for this ship, but therre are too many inaccuracies referencing this subject which you have pointed out. I went so far as to make a foamboard mock up to get an idea of the size, it was based on the canon measurements. The saucer diameter worked out to 20.25 inches and was not much bigger than the 1/350th refit. I may scrap that plan and go with the train of thought that you have! Great work is obvious and dedication to this project that you have is really something! Good Luck, and I may be hitting you up for some of these drawings! LOL!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I think I've gone as far as I can with these drawings for now. The other day I had cause to dig out every Trek book I own and search thru all the photos in them. And I think I've seen every photo on the Net, now, tho new ones and sites I've never seen before do keep cropping up.
And I realized that even if Paramount has another auction, the Excelsior has been seriously altered and then sliced and diced to become the B and even tho the overall dimensions are still there, the actual miniature will be of little help with the original NX or NCC 2000 details that I need. 
So still having questions and with nowhere else to turn, yesterday I snail mailed off some of these drawings to ILM along with a couple questions. I'm not really expecting a response - it's not like they have nothing to do - but it never hurts to try. Fingers crossed. 

PS Canon. I hate canon. Most of the time you never know where canon came from in the first place, and then much of the time canon just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Modeler1964, if you go with the length for the Excelsior of 1532 ft. then a scale of 350 is more like about 52-54 inches in length. That is the most popular length by the way.
Starseeker have you gone through the dvds for ST III and VI looking for images of the Excelsior? It may help in determinng the window placments on the port side.


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

Irishtrek- You are correct as far as the popular length. My foamboard mockup came out to 52.5 inches at 1/350 scale. I just need to decide what to do. 
Starseeker- Love the drawings you have made of the ship. With your permission, I plan on using them for my build. I am not making a kit, this will be for my use only.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

delete post


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Getting permission is the polite thing to do.
We know you can't claim full copyright to the subject matter, as it's most clearly a derived work. And indeed your intent was to copy as faithfully as possible. But we appreciate your detailed research and hard work. If I ever get around to my large-scale Excelsior I've planned for some years, I will certainly make good use of your drawings.
Thanks again.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Modeler1964: whatever scale you choose, these drawings seem to be very accurate. If you choose the smaller size, it just means the windows are smaller etc. on the real ship.
I'm still having a hard time accepting the larger size in my mind, but starseeker's arguments are very good.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Starseeker, what do you figure the diameter of the saucer section to be?


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

Yes, I agree that the prints are great! I am leaning toward the opinions of starseeker on scale. Especially if you want to display this beast next to a refit at 1/350th. It is certain that the movie execs did not give a crap when establishing some kind of continuity between ships and it is left to fans to determine what seems to be the most correct. I know for myself that I will want some sort of continuity between the two when comparing the features like the shuttlebay and bridge. In ST-III and VI, the Excelsior seems to dwarf the Enterprise. I know a lot of it has to do with perspective in the effects shots. At around 66 inches for the Excelsior, she sure would be impressive.


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

Starseeker- At 2000 feet overall length, what would the length of the secondary hull be? Length/Draft?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Approx 25.75" long in 1/537 scale (1152.3' = 39.5" @ 1/350 scale), 3 5/8 tall (162.2' = 5.6" @ 1/350) ), and 5.5" wide (246' = 8.5" @ 1/350).
I wonder what her crew compliment would have been? I keep thinking this is the size that the Refit or the TOS E should have been, given 450 people together 24/7/12/5 w/o serious drugs. (Altho Ellison wanted to mention that on City on the Edge of Forever.) I mean, on the TOS E, after a couple of months there must have been more than a few people staring at the back of roommates necks and fingering their phasers. Maybe that's why there was always a limitless supply of redshirts. 
Just read a wonderful post from Gary Kerr, who has been my single most trusted resource on searching for inaccuracies on the Refit, 
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=1941875&postcount=451
and it sounds like he used exactly the same process and had the same problems trying to blueprint the Refit as I've tried on the Escelsior. Except that I was too lazy to use Autocad and just penciled sketches instead.


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

Ok here is what I am coming up with as far as dimensions for a 2000 ft. Excelsior at 1/350th. 
Overall length= 68.5 inches
Saucer diameter= 27 inches
Nacelle length= 38 inches
Secondary hull length= 25.7 inches

Does this sound about right starseeker?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

It flitted thru my brain as I came up the stairs this am with those #s that the engineering hull didn't seem thick enough for all the levels I think it should contain. Two days at the hospital and my brain has turned into bat guano. I forgot that my drawings were 1/537 and automatically converted thinking they were 1/350. I'm editing my above post with what I think the right #s are. Triple check me. 
At 1/350, my sketches would also scale to these #s: 
Overall [email protected]/537=2030.5' or 69.6"@1/350
Saucer diameter =17.75" = 794.3' = 27.25" @1/350
Nacelle length = 24.375" = 1090.8' = 37.4"
so you're right on the money.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

How do you figure the Excelsior is as big as the E-D in length?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I know nothing about the D, nor do I care much. I do have a model of the thing, tho, and I got the STTNG Tech Manual in case I ever wanted to detail the model. 
As Rick Sternbach just said on another thread, the art departments really didn't care about logic, and he never cared about the art departments. Ships were scaled and sized arbitrarily based on who know who made the decisions (he says that DS9 had an ID of exactly 5280', which he freely ignored). I read that the D was designed originally with much longer nacelles but Roddenberry changed that himself. 
But, if you do want a bit of logic to base the scales and sizes on:
In the STTNG Tech Manual, page 11, there is a cutaway of the D. Assuming that the lines of windows on the Excelsior represent decks, there are about 15 decks down the engineering hull. My Excelsior engineering hull is about 91 mm deep.
In the cutaway in the STTNG T Manual, 15 decks of the Ds engineering hull is 19mm deep. The overall length of the D drawing is 255mm. Scaling those D drawing #s up to match my Excelsior drawing would result in a D 1221mm long overall, or approx 40 1/4". Shorter than my Excelsior, in fact. 
Those same deck thicknesses continue thru the Ds neck and primary hull, same as my deck thicknesses continue thru the Excelsior. 
That is a discrepancy (if it is a discrepancy) between a movie design and an unrelated television design. I don't think they were ever designed to have any logical consistency with one another, or ever even be seen with each other. The same way the D was never designed to be used with the starbase miniature, yet she ends up fitting inside those starbase doors that just accommodate the Refit just the same way as the Excelsior does.
Personally, I've always hated the Ds design. Just way too squat and inelegant for my taste. Much, much prefer the E-E.
The D would have a very considerably larger volume that the Excelsior, however.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

starseeker said:


> I read that the D was designed originally with much longer nacelles but Roddenberry changed that himself.


You've no doubt read this somewhere. (Probert says its stated in the Art of Star Trek.) However, it's actually the other way around. Roddenberry asked Probert to make two changes to the ship: lengthen the nacelles, and put the bridge back on the top of the saucer (he had it inside where it would be better protected).

Anyway, your other points are valid. It's likely ILM intended the ship to be 1500' long, but they just didn't design it in a way that actually supports that size! They adapted features from the 1701 but scaled them down unrealistically. 
Or, the designers designed it to be 2000' or so but the powers that be dictated that it was to be 1500'.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Starseeker, just so you know the E-D is supposed to be 641-642.5 meters long or 2108 feet long, that's pretty dang close to the length of your Excelsior. And the E-C is somewhere in between.
Also have you read the article concerning the size of the Excelsior on the ex-astrias web site?
The tail end of the drawings for the warp engines have an extension missing.
If you go to stbilder and look at the images of the Excelsiors warp engines then you should be able to see what I'm talking about. I didn't catch it until last night sometime.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I've noticed that there are 2 different ends on the Excelsior, if it's the side fins extending back on some versions and not on others (at least not the NX2000).
I checked. In both The Art of ST and STTNG The Continuing Voyages, it's stated that Roddenberry asked that the nacelles be shortened and shows an illustration of how much was taken off. Unfortunately, the illustration of the long version matches the finished product. So, as you say, either Rodb asked that the nacelles be lengthened, or they just didn't listen to him if he wanted them shortened. Also, an early Sternbach plan of the D shows taller (and less) decks in the eng hull as compared to what the art dep't etc finished with. Both egs show how little what's written/sketched/put on screen and in books as fancy graphics/canonized/etc can be trusted. And an early Probert sketch of the D as we know it shows it to be bigger, but only about 50% bigger, than the TOSE/Refit.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I don't have those 2 books, but I've heard of the first one though heck I even seen it in book stores. What is the second one any way, a collection of short stories?
Also are they both still in publication?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

starseeker said:


> In both The Art of ST and STTNG The Continuing Voyages, it's stated that Roddenberry asked that the nacelles be shortened and shows an illustration of how much was taken off. Unfortunately, the illustration of the long version matches the finished product. So, as you say, either Rodb asked that the nacelles be lengthened, or they just didn't listen to him if he wanted them shortened.


See Q32 and Probert's answer in this interview.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Looking at images of the Excelsior even from ST IIII can still see the horizontal extensions on the tail end of the warp engines, just can't see them in every image posted on the net.


----------



## Bridger (May 21, 2004)

Hi

I don´t know if you know my site but here are some good pictures of the 

Excelsior-class

http://st-bilder.de/html/excelsior2.html

http://st-bilder.de/html/star_trek_auf_der_suche_nach_m.html

http://st-bilder.de/html/star_trek_zuruck_in_die_gegenw.html

http://st-bilder.de/html/star_trek_das_unentdeckte_land.html

I am currently building a new Planetarysensor-Modul for the AMT Excelsior-class and Excelsior-class Refit using you great plans they are perfect


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Call me crazy, but I always thought this ship should have been NCC-1701-A. The producers were scared to not replace the Enterprise with a clone. I never liked the idea.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

A few months after ST III came out I was looking through an issue of Starlog magazine at the letters sent in by readers and somebodt had sent in a drawing of the refit with a different set of pylons and ai think they had a smaller set of warp engines off the Excelsior. I don't recall what other details the person did to the drawing.


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

Admiral Nelson said:


> Call me crazy, but I always thought this ship should have been NCC-1701-A. The producers were scared to not replace the Enterprise with a clone. I never liked the idea.


That was certainly ILM's intention (primarily because the refit wasn't their creation and Ralston hated it), but fan reaction was overwhelmingly negative to what looked like a huge sippy cup.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

^^
What negative fan reaction?
I loved the Excelsior! I still do!
I read an interview with Leonard Nimoy, and the writers of 
Star Trek III, that said the Excelsior was created just to have a 
"big E" to chase the Enterprise as she was leaving for Genesis.
The ship was just supposed to be an obstacle for Kirk and company
to narrowly escape from.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Initial fan reaction was pretty negative, as I recall. Several friends of mine made comments like "butt ugly" and worse things I can't repeat here. 

Me, I was sorta on the fence, but it didn't take long for me to fall in love w/the _Excelsior_ after a few extra viewings of the movie. Especially once there were one or two stills from the movie that started showing up in magazines.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Jeff's right. I also heard that a lot of fans originally hated the Excelsior. I didn't hate it and I recall being mesmerized by it when it got it's first big scene on the movie screen.

I did know some people who at first disliked the Excelsior.. but I've always really liked it and was thrilled when Lunar Models came out with their big kit.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Starseeker, if you go to the thread started bridger, stbilder.de ,and click on the link for the movies and then click on ST VI there is a very good image of the port side of the Excelsior, in fact there are a couple of images that would be helpful in determening the placment of the windows for the port side.
And since I printed out you drawings a while back I decided to compared the drawings to the images and the window placments do not match up 100%, a few match up though.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

*Excelsior 3D*

here's a rendering of a model I developed in Lightwave 7 years ago and am now thinking of working on again to guide me in making a 1/350 kit.....someday.


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

Hey does this thread offer hope that umm, dare I say... That it is possible... that we may acually have an acurate fabrication of the Excelsior?

"Dare to Dream Arnold, Dare to Dream...."


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

If I have anything to do with it, yes. I just have to got off of my duff and get to work on it. Right now, I'm creating a work space for fabricating a basic plank on frame approach, using slices of my 3D work to guide me, and all other refs I can get my hands on. I think these plans on this thread may be very useful, but I am relying heavily on photos for the 3D model. I have to research Starseekers plans, compare them with a set of my own and work on this.

I was planning a 54" length, based on 1531' figure, but Starseeker has an interesting point. I'll have to think about it.

What I'm going to need is an engineer's advice. Even using a plank on frame mode with sheet plastic, the torque of the saucer section is going to be pretty hard to anchor down to the engineering hull and make it all hold together right.

But once I have these issues solved (I on my own here), including dead-on accuracy to the ILM hero, I plan on starting up a garage business to sell the Excelsior/1701B in the 1/350 scale.

Just me, intent is always good, but there's still a lot of work ahead.


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

With the number of people looking for one I'm sure you won't come up short on offers of help.


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

Modeler1964 said:


> Ok here is what I am coming up with as far as dimensions for a 2000 ft. Excelsior at 1/350th.
> Overall length= 68.5 inches
> Saucer diameter= 27 inches
> Nacelle length= 38 inches
> ...


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I think that REL has a 1/350 fiberglass kit of the _Excelsior/Enterprise B_ planned in the near future. It might save someone a lot of effort - not that scratchbuilding one wouldn't be an interesting project!


----------



## Vaderman (Nov 2, 2002)

I actually believe it is Custom Replicas that will be doing it and REL will be commissioned to do the masters for it. I believe it is supposed to be a fiberglass kit.

Charonjr, are you considering FG or vacuforming for that kit? If vacuforming, it will require a large table to pull plastic on.

Scott


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I'd love to do vacuform, but without the equipment, and as you say, the sheer size of it. I was planning on a 1532' for this scale 1/350 (54" length), but I am taking Starseeker's info into thought. Haven't made a decision, yet. I tend to go with the official lengths, which seem to work, though I've never done a deck by deck analysis (except where doing the Lightwave model required it). I know the arguments, but it makes sense to me, especially in view of the 1701-C being 1726 (if I remember right). I don't know yet. 

FG may actually be the better way to go for strength reasons. I still like the plank on frame approach for a kit this size, using metal, acrylic and thin styrene sheet. 

However, the logistics can't be planned for until the engineering specifics are laid out. I wouldn't want to sell something and have it not able to support it's own weight when held by saucer (kids), engineering hull, or on a stand or hung by wire. 

And, of course, the thing has to be easily lit.


----------



## Modeler1964 (Aug 13, 2006)

Again I really like Starseeker's prints and am leaning toward the revised length of 2000. 
In 2008 I am seriously going to invest in some tools. You can do anything with the right tools! I will be purchasing a lathe first. My primary construction method will be blue foam. I had shyed away from this material before but have found/learned a few tricks with the sealing of it to make masters. I feel that at this length around 66 inches, It would need to be fiberglass with an internal armature. There are a lot of flat areas on the ship which would be easy to fabricate. 
REL is a master for sure; anything he would produce would be an excellent example. I am one of his customers and have ordered a K'Tinga from him.(Grail kit for me) But unfortunately, I can't afford the large kits as a rule. I had to wait for a windfall to buy it. I have always liked the Excelsior and hope to build a good representation of her this year.


----------



## smorariu (Jan 6, 2008)

*Excelsior length*

Please forgive me if this comes across as impugning your work, but I'm confused as to your length overall? I found many sources with a length of 469 meters bringing the model length to 34.38 inches in 1/537 scale. Your posting said you settled on 45 inches, and your source at ILM said 1500 ft, making it 35.7 inches.

I'm trying to research this for my own model, and I'm really confused. Can you help me out?

Thanks,
Sergio


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

*Size of Excelsior*

I did a simple test that convinced me that the 2000' figure is more accurate than the original 1531' figure Nilo Rodis, the designer, had put forth: I took the PL 1:1000 scale Enterprise and the AMT/ERTL "1:1000" Excelsior next to each other, saucer rim against saucer rim. Enterprise's 2 deck (6&7) covered decks 6, 7 & 8 of the Excelsior saucer. Improved tech? No need for as much interdeck space? Don't know. But this 1 deck difference means Excelsior needs to be 133% larger: 2036.23 feet. This way, if we consider the 2 deck rim of the Enterprise as our starting point, and Nilo Rodis' drawings showing the SAME thickness for Excelsior, the deck thicknesses match.

2036.23 x 12 = 24434.76, divide by 350 = 69.8136

These sketches are right.

Interestingly, I did the same comparison between the Lunar 41" Excelsior and the PL Refit 1:350...there was a similar 3 deck Excelsior to 2 deck Refit. I tried the same 133% increase in length and the Lunar Models reflects a 1590' vessel that is 54" long at 1:350 (41" x 350 / 12 = 1195.33 x 133% = 1590.45833' x 12 / 350 = 54.53"). 

I know this is apples to oranges. Lunar Models (while accurate for its time, when there was virtually no information about the ship) is a 1/542 scale: boring you with the math, lets see what happens. 41" x 542 = 22222" / 12 = 1851.83'. Now converting to 1:350...gives us a 63.49" model.

The figures are definitely interesting, with apologies to the Excelsior's designer, the ship has to be larger than 1531'.

Attached is a web photo of Nilo Rodis' original size sketch showing the Enterprise Refit (1000') compared to Excelsior (1531').

Now I'm definitely leaning to a 66 to 69 inch 1:350 scale model. Who - boy!


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

If you kit this beast we'll need a shark tank to display it.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Excellent work! 

The _Excelsior_ is a highly under-rated ship, IMHO. You're giving her the attention she deserves.

:thumbsup:


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Originally posted by *PerfesserCoffee*


> Excellent work!
> 
> The Excelsior is a highly under-rated ship, IMHO. You're giving her the attention she deserves. :thumbsup:


I concur! :hat:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

The Galaxy class E-D is 2108 feet long and the E-C is 1700-1800 feet long so how do you guys firgure the Excelsior is 2000 feet?


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

Ya know...he is right. There is no way the Excelsior is as long as the BIG D...


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

/\/\ Why not?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Even if longer, the Excelsior wouldn't have nearly the volume of the _1701D._


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Well this is the issue with Starseekers Excelsior plans. He is basing them not on the Nilo Rodis length of 1531 feet but on the size of the saucer section windows and the overall deck thickness the edge of the saucer needs to be to match the Enterprise. He is assuming the windows are of consistent size between the two ships. He has deduced the larger size of Excelsior as a result.

The official lengths of Starfleet vessels (some of which are contested by modelers=
1701 = 947 feet (Matt Jeffries/Making of Star Trek)
1701A = 1000 feet (ST:TMP Official Blueprints)
Excelsior = 1531 feet (Nilo Rodis/Star Trek 3)
1701B = 1567? feet (I believe this was due to the vertical fin on the warp nacelle)
1701C = 1726 feet (I don't recall where I read this...)
1701D = 2107 feet (Star Trek: TNG Technical Manual)
1701E = 2248 feet (ST:TNG Sketchbook, p. 91)
Voyager = 1130 feet
NX-01 = ? Never could really pin this one down

Anyway, all of these figures have been disputed in one forum or another for years. It really just depends on what you want. 

Personally, I prefer making models as accurate as I can. But read Starseekers reasoning. It's enough to make one think. Certainly, the 6 foot 1701A hero and the 8 foot Excelsior hero were not to scale to each other and were only photographically combined into the shots where they were shown together.

I noticed that the book Ships of the Line, shows the Excelsior next to the 1701A on the last page or so. The CGI artist made the edge of Excelsior a good 3 decks thick with much more padding above and below the windows than 1701A has. Is he right?

Ultimately, again, it all comes down to what you want. Can we all come to a consensus of the Excelsior's length? Do we use Nilo Rodis' original length of 1531 feet? Is Starseeker right in his assertions? (This sounds like a bad movie, but) Only you can decide.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

EAS has an article on the size of the Excelsior and a comparason of the 2 saucer rims for the A and the Excelsior both.
And the size of the A is 6.1 meters while the Excelsiors saucer rim is 6 meters.
According to the article on EAS that is.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Hi Everyone, 

It's late and I just saw Irishtrek's post: where can I access EAS to read the article, please?

Secondly, I'm an idiot. Forgive me. I've been thinking of doing the kit in 1:350th scale, not realizing we're talking 1:537th. My figures are all based on the larger scale.

Arg! I'll redo the figures in the future when I have more time, earlier in the day.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

www.ex-astris-scientia.org then click on articles and scroll down to Excelsior.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

irishtrek,

Thanks! Food for thought.... Having fun reading this sight!


----------



## bccanfield (Nov 17, 2002)

Thats pretty close to The Star Trek Encyclopedia by Michael and Denise Okuda (pg 138):
1701: 289 Meters (948 ft)
1701A: 305 meters (1000 ft)
1701B: 467 meters (1532 ft)
1701C: 526 Meters (1726 ft)
1701D: 641 Meters (2103 ft)
1701E: 680 meters (2231 ft)


From http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/NX_class (not sure how reliable this source is) and other internet sources 
NX-01: 225 meters (738 ft)


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

*Need super hi-res pix*

Hi guys, 
I'm still working out what size I want to make the Excelsior in. Anyone have hyper-clear images of the Excelsior and the 1701A side views? I'm trying to accurately locate the viewports in both images, highlight them in paintshop and blowup/reduce Excelsior's windows to equal size with Enterprise's. This should confirm this thread or not. I'm making a new assumption about window size vs deck heights, then I'll see what length I'll go with.

Current images of the hero models are very fuzzy! BTW, just realized in comparing the windows of the Excelsior to the 1701B - there are additional round windows at the ends of each saucer rim window set, and the outer two lower windows have been moved with respect to the upper ones on the 1701B!

Any help would be appreciated! Thanks!


----------



## Bridger (May 21, 2004)

http://www.st-bilder.de/html/star_trek_auf_der_suche_nach_m.html
http://www.st-bilder.de/html/star_trek_das_unentdeckte_land.html
http://www.st-bilder.de/html/excelsior2.html


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Thanks Bridger,

There are some nice shots of Excelsior there. I tend to ignore the Greg Jein version because of the inaccurate secondary hull shape: it's not the same as the 8 footer from 3 & 6.

I'll see what I can do.


----------



## Bridger (May 21, 2004)

Yes sure i hope that they will help you

Maybe iam wrng but i think that the Amt Excelsior bases on Jeins Excelsior so 

what is on his excelsior wrong


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Jein's Excelsior is really based on an earlier drawing of the ship by Rodis. The AMT model also reflects that design: the angle of the neck curves smoothly into 2nd hull, which continues that curve. The 8 footer shooting model used in the Trek movies: the 2nd hull has the curve dropping shallowly downward for about six decks to the top of the deflector tunnel before really curving back.

Jein's Excelsior was made for Voyager. Note that in the deflector and refit deflector comparison that the Jein model is used.


----------



## Bridger (May 21, 2004)

Hi 

Thanks for your help i will simply follow your plans

One last question do you have plans of the bay in the secondary hull


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Jein did get that right in his version, compared with the 8 footer (I used to be a projectionist and have a frame of the bay from an old print). These are very clear in the 1701B shots of the model you showed to me.

When I get down to making the plans, the bay will be included. Right now, I am trying to work with Lightwave again (after several years layoff) to test everything. The image is what I've done so far. I am trying to make it hyper-accurate, using photos to get every detail. If you want me to do other renders and email them to you, let me know.

Also, you should be aware that REL at Sovereign Replicas is planning on having a clear-epoxy 53" Excelsior available by 2009. He has currently available the 1701E at 40" which you can see on his website. It looks grand.

I can't afford to do fiberglass epoxy, so if and when I get this done, you'll have a choice.

So far no one has offered any engineering expertise, so I'm availing myself of a friend who is a civil engineering. I just have to get the drawings done first.

Wish me luck, as I want to do both Excelsior and the 1701B.


----------



## Bridger (May 21, 2004)

Hi

You understand me wrong i wanted to ask you if you have sketches of the bay in the secodary hull


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Hi Bridger, 

Sorry, I mis-understood. No I don't have any sketches made yet of that area. I'll be guided by these images, as well as the 1701B model/toy made by Playmates. Playmates 1701B is the only rendition of the Excelsior class to include a reasonably correct bay and the trench in the saucer where the neck connects.

I once took a mold of it to modify the AMT Excelsior kit, since it's bay was totally wrong.

I've figured out a different way to compare window sizes on the Excelsior and the Enterprise. I should have results this weekend.


----------



## Bridger (May 21, 2004)

Hi charonjr

I don´t know if you have seen them but the pictures of the studio model on page 8,9 and 10 are very great so i am sure that they will help you. That are pictures of the 1701-B but in fact many sections are them same like on the NX-2000/NCC-2000/NCC-42768


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Beautiful! Thanks Bridger! This is gonna be fun!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Hey starseeker, what happened to your drawings for the Excelsior?
I ask because some one on SSM was wanting to see what you had posted here.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I had to delete almost everything else to make room for my Jupiter 2 drawings. I think my lower deck drawings have served their purpose now, so if I get a chance, this week I'll remove them and repost the 2000. Now that we have a larger size limit for each attachment, I'll also see if I can stitch them together so that individual views are all of a piece.
Edit: this is just a test shot of a stitched together side. Have to admit I don't like the scan quality - the light and dark, so I think I want to rescan all these before I repost them. And I notice I missed a strip toward the tail anyway. Wonder how much of the others I missed? Sigh. Just want to see what this looks like, if I can even post an attachment this big... 
Seems I can. Boy, this looks awful.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Starseeker, thanks for reposting the side image! I just printed it out using Paint; the 1" test squares printed out perfectly! I'll just have to paste it all together now. Well, "now" meaning "later". I've got other things planned today! LOL! She looks good, even though you want to clean up the images. I can understand that, but it's not THAT bad, at least for comparison purposes.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

You're welcome! I think the best thing for me to do would be to get these drawings to an actual print shop with a giant scanner and get them scanned in one piece. That could be a whole lot less work for everyone concerned. 
The details sheet(s, below), tho it doesn't contain much, shows graphically my reasoning behind my scale choices.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Thakns for the info Starseeker!! I'll post an update on that other thread on SSM so the guy can take a look at what you posted here today.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Went to a copy shop and got my drawings scanned on a big machine. In the 1st three messages in this thread, I re-posted the complete drawings, in only 8 attachments! This is the way to do it, none of this fooling around with a letter size scanner and having to piece together a couple dozen sheets. 
In order to make my pencil lines as dark as she could, she darkened the image as dark as she could without too much noise. They're still pretty noisy, but a vast improvement on what I had. The jpgs I attached here look virtually identical to the huge pdf files that they came from. ??? But if anyone wants the giant pdfs, and has high speed, pm me.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Hey Starseeker, any progress???


----------

