# Tos Enterprise Round2 News.....



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

http://www.collectormodel.com/


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

WOOHOO!

Hoping they do the "parts for all 3 versions" thing that Tom Sasser did for them on the 1/1000 kit.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

You just go ahead and put those details in there, and I will decide if I can pick them out at 1/350 scale. :lol:

This is superb news. I've had a strong attachment to this ship for 45 years, now. I can't tell you how good this makes me feel that the definitive model kit will finally be produced. Throw all of those details in there!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Glad to see they are still serious about this! I am looking forward to this.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Wow! This is indeed good news!



John P said:


> WOOHOO!
> 
> Hoping they do the "parts for all 3 versions" thing that Tom Sasser did for them on the 1/1000 kit.


Take a close look at the computer screen in the image that accompanies the article. I see file names for plans for the 1st pilot, 2nd pilot and production versions! Gary Kerr is on the job!


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

26 sheets on the nacelles?
In my world we call that wasting time and money. 

This doesn't give me confidence.


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

WOOHOOOO!!! YESS!!! I was hoping they hadn't forgot about it. They seem to be focusing so much time on the new Enterprise and other items, I was afraid we were gonna be outta luck. Granted, it's still a long way off, but at least there is hope


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Atemylunch said:


> 26 sheets on the nacelles?
> In my world we call that wasting time and money.
> 
> This doesn't give me confidence.


In your world, is the motto: "Aw, close enough for government work"? Having seen the amazing research and detail Mr. Kerr puts into his work, I'm confident that for the first time, in any scale, and for any version, there will be an Enterprise model that doesn't need months of reworking or three times the price of the model in aftermarket fixes. I didn't have any confidence in this kit before I knew Gary Kerr was coming on board. Now I can't wait.


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

Yippy Skippy!!!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Oh YES! I am SO in!


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Bring it on!


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

I was thinking/hoping they were much further along the process than this. However, I am still glad and grateful they are 'doing' it. 

But, as they are only seeking funds to prototype it now, that doesn't mean they won't scrap the entire project if it looks too expensive. Once they ok _*and pay*_ for the tooling, that's the point at which we can be relieved. They were far along the 350 KTinga before PL dropped that, afterall.

In as much anticipation as I sit waiting for this model, until it's in one's hands, it may as well not exist at all. But jeez I'm happy to read that!


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

Is there a chance that Round 2 will put together an ortho of the 1/350 TOS Enterprise from Gary Kerr's drawings? 

Of course it would not be available until the model details have been finalized and the model is in production.


----------



## GUS (Jun 29, 2006)

what did kerr work on before that couldn't be mentioned in the blog?

gus


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

Atemylunch said:


> 26 sheets on the nacelles?
> In my world we call that wasting time and money.
> 
> This doesn't give me confidence.


Ummm. I don't even know how to respond to this.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

As far as I'm concerned, they can spend whatever they need to develop the kit. They'll make it back in sales. I'll see to that!


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

GUS said:


> what did kerr work on before that couldn't be mentioned in the blog?
> 
> gus


The Moebius Jupiter II.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Atemylunch said:


> 26 sheets on the nacelles?
> In my world we call that wasting time and money.
> 
> This doesn't give me confidence.


The fabricators in China work from jpegs that are emailed to them, not from large sheets of blueprints. You have to break the plans into small, bite-size chunks (annotated to the hilt with dimensions) that can be printed, scanned, and emailed. You need separate plans for each version of the ship, plus I'm going into extreme detail. For example, I've got a separate plan of the ridges in a cross-section of the rear nacelle vents.

Giving all possible details & dimensions to the Chinese eliminates guesswork and reduces the number of corrections & test shots. Not a waste of time and money.

Gary


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Just keep doing what your doing.........


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

someone get to work on a 350th scale metal deflector dish!


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Gary K said:


> The fabricators in China work from jpegs that are emailed to them, not from large sheets of blueprints. You have to break the plans into small, bite-size chunks (annotated to the hilt with dimensions) that can be printed, scanned, and emailed. You need separate plans for each version of the ship, plus I'm going into extreme detail. For example, I've got a separate plan of the ridges in a cross-section of the rear nacelle vents.
> 
> Giving all possible details & dimensions to the Chinese eliminates guesswork and reduces the number of corrections & test shots. Not a waste of time and money.
> 
> Gary


Understood, I've had to do far more for US contractors. Which drove me to have my own shop. (I always git a kick out the the word "blueprint", I haven't seen them in use since the late 90's.) 

Did you hand draft the documents, or were they cad?


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Magesblood said:


> someone get to work on a 350th scale metal deflector dish!


I can contact someone and ask when the kit starts getting ready to hit.
He did a limited run for the MR ship that was simply superior.


Someone needs to get a lighting kit and motor drive for the nacelles too.


This kit is going to be a BIG deal.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Atemylunch said:


> Understood, I've had to do far more for US contractors. Which drove me to have my own shop. (I always git a kick out the the word "blueprint", I haven't seen them in use since the late 90's.)
> 
> Did you hand draft the documents, or were they cad?


AutoCAD all the way. The last hand-drafted plan I drew was the TOS Enterprise for DS9's "Trials and Tribble-ations." 

Gary


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Gary K said:


> AutoCAD all the way. The last hand-drafted plan I drew was the TOS Enterprise for DS9's "Trials and Tribble-ations."
> 
> Gary


That's good to know, I've been using AutoCAD since release 12. 
I've been working in Architecture/Civil Engineering since 95, and the last time I saw a hand drafted drawing was at the end of the 90's. (amazing how all of this stuff has changed).

Gary do you mind a few questions?


----------



## richlen2 (Apr 2, 2009)

This is great news. Last year my son and I built the AMT, same one I built in 1966 except without the lights and the molds were so old it took hours to fit, putty and sand the parts. We've waited 40 years for this! Hats off to Round 2.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Atemylunch said:


> 26 sheets on the nacelles?
> In my world we call that wasting time and money.
> 
> This doesn't give me confidence.


And if the nacelles are made up of 26 parts, what's your opinion then?


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

Good to hear from you, Gary. We're all very glad that you are on the job. You're work is always excellent. :thumbsup:


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

any idea if we can get a peek as said images and blueprints?


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

This is thrilling news....The Polar Lights 1/1000 scale, although by far the most accurate plastic kit at the time of its release, did suffer from some accuracy errors. One being the upper tear drop bridge area was too severly slanted-in when viewed straight on from the front. Knowing that the awesome talents of Gary Kerr being at the design helm tells me it's finally going to be done correctly......CAN'T WAIT!!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Magesblood said:


> any idea if we can get a peek as said images and blueprints?


You'll have to address that question to Bob Plant and Jamie Hood at Round 2. I sent them 1001 screen caps of the preliminary AutoCAD plans, in order to save my precious color laser toner. Once they decide if they want to add any fun features to the model, I'll tweak my plans and print out the good versions for the factory in China.

Atemylunch - if you have any questions, ask them, and I'll answer if I can.

Gary


----------



## fxshop (May 19, 2004)

Gary K said:


> The fabricators in China work from jpegs that are emailed to them, not from large sheets of blueprints. You have to break the plans into small, bite-size chunks (annotated to the hilt with dimensions) that can be printed, scanned, and emailed. You need separate plans for each version of the ship, plus I'm going into extreme detail. For example, I've got a separate plan of the ridges in a cross-section of the rear nacelle vents.
> 
> Giving all possible details & dimensions to the Chinese eliminates guesswork and reduces the number of corrections & test shots. Not a waste of time and money.
> 
> Gary


 Thanks Gary for all your hard work on the project! I am glad to hear your doing the the design, I can now rest knowing it will be done by you! I already have some great electronic designs for 1/350 scale. Thanks again! Randy Neubert / VoodooFX:thumbsup:


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Good things come to those that wait! It took over 40 years and dare I hope that this will indeed come true? With Gary on board at least the design is in good hands! I'm glad to see it made it to this stage! I just hope in this economy that the project will stay on track. The tone over at the Round2 site seems to be positive and I hope it can go through as planned. Time will tell! :wave:

Good news indeed!!!:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Gary K said:


> Atemylunch - if you have any questions, ask them, and I'll answer if I can.
> 
> Gary


I understand, your NDAed up the...
So I will try not to ask any questions that transgress your agreements. But still benefit the thread. 

How hard is it to communicate(your designs) with a foreign contractor? 

What types of drawings are required for a model kit(what do you need to show)?

Did you design the model kit(parts, assembly, etc)?

Does your model design include the molds(dies), or is that up to the contractor?

Are you prepared for the fallout after the kit is released:lol:?


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

Atemylunch said:


> I understand, your NDAed up the...
> So I will try not to ask any questions that transgress your agreements. But still benefit the thread.
> 
> How hard is it to communicate(your designs) with a foreign contractor?
> ...




if I may...

My guess is that foreign designers have at least a few workers that speak and read other languages. Besides, I think architectural design signs and symbols are universal and can be understood by anyone in the biz.

Drawing have signs and call outs like "this is this many degrees tapered downward" and "this curve is 8.520 degrees" or "each 3.2 millimeter tall raised line is spaced 2.1 centimeters from each other and be 12 centimeters long". As I say, they have symbols for that kind of thing.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Atemylunch said:


> I understand, your NDAed up the...
> So I will try not to ask any questions that transgress your agreements. But still benefit the thread.
> 
> How hard is it to communicate(your designs) with a foreign contractor?
> ...


The facility in China that will be making the TOS Enterprise for Round 2 is a one-stop shop: you give them some blueprints (even studio or hand-drawn plans) or 3D computer files in the proper format, then they create the prototype & test shots. Revisions are easy to make, since they simply need to make changes to their 3D computer models. The only hitch is whether or not it's cost effective, both budget-wise and schedule-wise, to make the revisions. After the Chinese get the final approvals, they manufacture the kit and ship it to the US.

The best part about using the Chinese is that they are very, very clever about engineering the parts so they hide seams quite well and practically fit together without glue. Moebius' new BSG Viper fits together like a jigsaw puzzle, and assembly is a snap. I don't think I'm violating any NDA to say you can be sure that extra care will be taken to make sure the TOS Enterprise doesn't get all droopy.

For the TOS Enterprise, I'll be working with the same people who already know (and probably hate) my name. Generally speaking, I give them detailed plans of the subject (annotated with dimensions, but not broken down part-by-part) and numerous reference photos, and they do a pretty good job at translating the info into styrene. Once in a while, it's like pulling teeth to get a particular change made, especially on curvey, hard-to-define surfaces, but they usually do a good job - especially considering that most of the workers have never seen the weird sci-fi vehicle that the crazy Americans are obsessing over.



Atemylunch said:


> Are you prepared for the fallout after the kit is released:lol:?


Bring it on! If any of the know-it-all fanboys get pissy with me - and they will - I'm prepared to go all Merriman on their asses! 

Gary


----------



## sapper36 (Jul 4, 2008)

Gary - Can't tell you how exited I am at the prospect of this kit! My one question - Is the saucer based on the 11 foot model or the flatter 3 foot model? I don't beleive anyone has ever tackled that 3 footer adequately.

If not what changes do you think will be needed to replicate the 3 footer?


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

Gary K said:


> ......Bring it on! If any of the know-it-all fanboys get pissy with me - and they will - I'm prepared to go all Merriman on their asses!......


Best. Quote. Ever!

Gene


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

GKvfx said:


> Best. Quote. Ever!
> 
> Gene


qft! (for length)


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

GKvfx said:


> Best. Quote. Ever!
> 
> Gene



Indeed! I've been laughing hard at that for the last few minutes! :thumbsup:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

What's the big deal, it's just another TOS model.


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> What's the big deal, it's just another TOS model.


JUST ANOTHER TOS MODEL?!?!! *flings shoe at Lloyd*


----------



## fxshop (May 19, 2004)

Bring it on! If any of the know-it-all fanboys get pissy with me - and they will - I'm prepared to go all Merriman on their asses! 

Gary[/QUOTE]
Hello Gary, Myself and other model builders love your design work , and are very greatfull for anyting you come up with! I my self feel your one of the best model designers out there and what ever you come up will be amazing! Keep up the great work!

Randy Neubert
VoodoooFX
1-650-568-3400
www.voodoofx.com
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Gary K said:


> Bring it on! If any of the know-it-all fanboys get pissy with me - and they will - I'm prepared to go all Merriman on their asses!
> 
> Gary


"Damn fools, your all kit assemblers..."
Great comment, I never got over how many TOS E experts are out there. Considering they were looking at grainy images on a BW tv. If any of them knew what the 11' really looked like, would they want an absolutely accurate repro?

Thanks Gary for answering my questions. 
I have some more if you don't mind.

Did you do the design for the MR TOS E? 

How long does it take to get to the first shot? 

Did the job include the decals as well?

How did T2 select you for the work?


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Considering how well the 1:350 refit has done, I am confident that this model WILL be made.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Only 40 years waiting, I guess I can wait a little more. 

Are we there...YET! 

Now I will have to build the shrine, or maybe add a new room on the house for it.


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

> I'm prepared to go all Merriman on their asses!


As much as we use it around the various boards in the hobby, we should have a tee shirt or bumper sticker to this effect by now. That, or something stating "Kit Assembler"....


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

John P said:


> WOOHOO!
> 
> Hoping they do the "parts for all 3 versions" thing that Tom Sasser did for them on the 1/1000 kit.


That would be _sooo_ sweet. :thumbsup:

I, too, have been waiting for this for so very long. I even had it seriously in mind to step up and pay the bucks for a MR TOS _E,_ but this is *much* better.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

sapper36 said:


> Gary - Can't tell you how exited I am at the prospect of this kit! My one question - Is the saucer based on the 11 foot model or the flatter 3 foot model? I don't beleive anyone has ever tackled that 3 footer adequately.
> 
> If not what changes do you think will be needed to replicate the 3 footer?


It dang well BETTER be based on the 11-footer! The 3-foot study model is a curiosity at best, not remotely the definitive Enterprise. I'm sure we all want a model of the ship we saw on screen, during the episodes, not the one Flint had on his coffee table or the temporary one that flashed by for a second during The Cage.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Looks like we now have pre-colored figures available for our open hangar decks!

command gold, science blue, operations red (maybe)....

http://www.hyperscale.com/2009/reviews/maritime/goffygfs007reviewse_1.htm


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

GaryK:

Thanks for looking out for all your fellow fans! :thumbsup:

I'm glad someone is working to get it just right instead of a "reasonable approximation" as past models have been.

The only possible extra I'd really like to see is a detailed shuttlebay with tiny shuttlecraft. 

Is that going to happen on this model?


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

sapper36 said:


> Gary - Can't tell you how exited I am at the prospect of this kit! My one question - Is the saucer based on the 11 foot model or the flatter 3 foot model? I don't beleive anyone has ever tackled that 3 footer adequately.


The model will be based on the 11-footer, the definitive Enterprise.



sapper36 said:


> If not what changes do you think will be needed to replicate the 3 footer?


I can't be of much help with the 3-footer. I haven't studied it in detail, since there's no physical model - just a few publicity shots and a two minutes of screen time. I'm only certain about one thing: on the bottom of the saucer, there's a sharp edge between the undercut and the outer rim on the saucer. 

Gary


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Atemylunch said:


> Thanks Gary for answering my questions.
> I have some more if you don't mind.
> 
> Did you do the design for the MR TOS E?


Yes. I supplied paper plans and offered advice on the paint scheme. I didn't see a physical model until I saw the paint master at WonderFest in 2006.



Atemylunch said:


> How long does it take to get to the first shot?


I'm can't give you a firm time frame, since there are variables (such as the number or corrections that must be made) that are unique to each job. In the case of the very complex Jupiter 2, I was sending groups of plans to China from November through the first of January, and the hand-made prototype arrived in the US in the first half of March. A number of corrections were requested, and they had finished an injection-molded test shot ready four months later.



Atemylunch said:


> Did the job include the decals as well?


Yes - many, many, many decals.



Atemylunch said:


> How did T2 select you for the work?


I don't think the guys at Round 2 would want me to say too much about their internal deliberations, other than the fact that they made various inquiries, and my name came up.

Gary


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> GaryK:
> 
> Thanks for looking out for all your fellow fans! :thumbsup:
> 
> ...


Nothing is set in stone yet, but I think a hangar bay & shuttlecaft are a safe bet. I've sent 1001 preliminary plans to Round 2, and they're working up a budget for the model. Bob & Jamie at R2 are really gung-ho on the TOS E, and want to outdo the Refit model.

The hangar bay presents a number of challenges, which I'll have to detail in a "making of" article someday. For starters, your view of the bay is restricted by the small opening. If you have a MR Enterprise, you know what I mean. Worst of all, the hangar bay that Uncle Matt designed is far deeper, higher and wider than anything that could possibly fit in a 947' spaceship. Mike Okuda ran into this problem when he was working on the Remastered Star Trek series (which I consulted on), and he told me they had to cheat on the hangar bay design. Not to worry, though. I believe I've got a workable solution - but don't ask for details till we're further along in the planning.

Gary


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

KUROK said:


> Looks like we now have pre-colored figures available for our open hangar decks!
> 
> command gold, science blue, operations red (maybe)....
> 
> http://www.hyperscale.com/2009/reviews/maritime/goffygfs007reviewse_1.htm


Yeah ... red one even looks frozen in "pose of horror" as if getting vaporized.


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

I would love to see that the nacelles are designed to accommodate motors and lights like the MR Enterprise. In fact, it there was a deluxe version available that had it included as well as all the other internal lights that would be awesome!


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Gary K said:


> The model will be based on the 11-footer, the definitive Enterprise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This gent did an incredible amount of R & D on the 3-footer for his model build.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=87944


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Also, while it may be a little late for research for this kit, some interesting discoveries have been made by myself and others regarding the pilot versions' detailing (such as the revelation that the "Cage" version had formation lights on the saucer).

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=272506


(membership required)

http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=78639


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

Gregatron said:


> (membership required)
> 
> http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=78639


Pfft.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The National Enquirer reports that the 1/350 TOS 1701 will be patterned after the original AMT model.


----------



## Landru (May 25, 2009)

Magesblood said:


> Pfft.


Why "Pfft"? A lot of hard work has gone into the those projects in that thread.


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

Landru said:


> Why "Pfft"? A lot of hard work has gone into the those projects in that thread.


It's not that.


----------



## miraclefan (Apr 11, 2009)

Lloyd Collins said:


> The National Enquirer reports that the 1/350 TOS 1701 will be patterned after the original AMT model.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

All I can say about this future kit is... FINALLY!!

It will be done right! It will be big! I won't have to spend three times what the kit cost in after-market accurizing parts. 

Gary has been the TOS E go-to guy for a long time and his involvement ensures a higher degree of accuracy. I just hope there aren't compromises in design made at the time of manufacture. I'd love to see both pilot versions and the series version built and displayed side by side at Wonderfest in a couple years.

Now, will this be late 2010? 2011? Later?

My 1/350 refit still sits in it's box because the painting intimidates me. But this kit I would tackle for sure. It must have a light kit including spinning fan blades in the domes.

I can't think of a single kit I have wanted more than this. The 2001 moonbus was second in line and now we get that too. :thumbsup:


----------



## Landru (May 25, 2009)

Magesblood said:


> It's not that.


Would you care to elaborate then?


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

WOW! How'd I miss this thread! Really pumped about this. I hope there are parts for all three versions as I'll display them side by side. Been waiting a long time and I see now the kit is in good hands. YAAAAYYYY!
Jim and Judys Horror Models .com


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

jheilman said:


> My 1/350 refit still sits in it's box because the painting intimidates me.


I don't actually have a 1/350 refit, but I know exactly how you feel. The aztec-ing I've seen over the years have often struck me as too overt (just like grid lines drawn too heavily on the TOS _E)._ For my skills I can't imagine trying to duplicate the subtlety of the painting scheme as seen on film. And it is a major element of the ship's design.

As for not having a refit model of my own... Well, I really do like the design--it's my second favourite Trek starship---but my first love has always been the TOS _E._

After this news, though, I know I'm gonna want a 1/24 scale TOS shuttlecraft.


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

Landru said:


> Would you care to elaborate then?


no thank you.

Suffice it to say that I meant no disparagement toward you or other members there. Only "there".


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Guys, I heard from a reliable source that this new kit is going to be an enlarged version of the 22" cut-away kit which we all know is super accurate!


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

no offense but how could your source possibly know this when the plans just got sent overseas just days ago?


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

I think I sense a "little" sarcasm from Mr. Kurok....


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Gary K said:


> Nothing is set in stone yet, but I think a hangar bay & shuttlecaft are a safe bet . . .
> 
> The hangar bay presents a number of challenges, which I'll have to detail in a "making of" article someday . . . [T]he hangar bay that Uncle Matt designed is far deeper, higher and wider than anything that could possibly fit in a 947' spaceship. Mike Okuda ran into this problem when he was working on the Remastered Star Trek series (which I consulted on), and he told me they had to cheat on the hangar bay design. Not to worry, though. I believe I've got a workable solution - but don't ask for details till we're further along in the planning.


Ha!  Not to worry! I've been following your work for years now and trust you to make the best possible interpretation in the matter.:wave:


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Ha!  Not to worry! I've been following your work for years now and trust you to make the best possible interpretation in the matter.:wave:


Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I think R2 needs the services of a magician to get the shuttle bay to fit.  Hollywood SF movies are notorious for having vehicles that are larger on the inside than on the outside, and the shuttle bay is no exception. But I'll get the bay to fit, by hook or by crook.

A couple years ago, I came up with my own plan for a shuttle bay that would actually fit inside the ship, and would be more functional than the original design. My design keeps the essence of the original design, but can handle full-size shuttles (as opposed to the subscale Galileo they showed on TV), allowed for heavy bracing of the nacelle pylons and had a usable turntable/elevator (the original elevator wouldn't work unless the shuttle was the size of a large breadbox).

Hmm.... maybe I should market my own aftermarket parts....

Gary


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Gary K said:


> A couple years ago, I came up with my own plan for a shuttle bay that would actually fit inside the ship...


I think I may have seen that one. It reminded me a bit of the FJ solution but made more sense.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Gregatron said:


> Also, while it may be a little late for research for this kit, some interesting discoveries have been made by myself and others regarding the pilot versions' detailing (such as the revelation that the "Cage" version had formation lights on the saucer).
> 
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=272506
> 
> ...


Thanks for pointing that project out. I missed it somehow.:wave:


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I think I may have seen that one. It reminded me a bit of the FJ solution but made more sense.


You probably haven't seen it, since I've only showed it to a couple people, like Doug Drexler & Andrew Probert. Or did I ever post it?? I forget. Basically, you have a landing area behind the pylons, an airlock through the pylon bracing, and a large staging/receiving area in front of the pylons. The elevator in the staging area leads to a 2-story maintenance area below. Storage areas are fwd of the staging area & maintenance area, similar to the Refit. With my design, they can launch & retrieve shuttles, while the staging area has a shirtsleeve environment. They only have to pressurize/depressurize an airlock, instead of the entire bay.

Btw, be cautious with the colors on some of the Curtis Media photos, and try to verify them, wherever possible. Not to knock their very cool pictures, but a friend who's talked to them says they had to do extensive work to restore the images (some images required more work than others), and occasionally they've accidentally added the wrong color to parts of the restored images. 


Gary


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Half the fun of this is the anticipation. What a fun thing to think about and discuss with your friends. This is a great time to be in this hobby!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Gary K said:


> Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I think R2 needs the services of a magician to get the shuttle bay to fit.  Hollywood SF movies are notorious for having vehicles that are larger on the inside than on the outside, and the shuttle bay is no exception. But I'll get the bay to fit, by hook or by crook.
> 
> A couple years ago, I came up with my own plan for a shuttle bay that would actually fit inside the ship, and would be more functional than the original design. My design keeps the essence of the original design, but can handle full-size shuttles (as opposed to the subscale Galileo they showed on TV), allowed for heavy bracing of the nacelle pylons and had a usable turntable/elevator (the original elevator wouldn't work unless the shuttle was the size of a large breadbox).
> 
> ...


The ReMastered Shows had a more realisticly scaled Shuttlebay - a ggo shot of it is in the 'Ships of the Line' 2010 Calender


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

The only version this kit could be released as is the TV PRODUCTION VERSION.
To build the earlier pilot versions- the window arrangement and size are totally different. This is on the primary and secondary hulls so duplicate , large main hull parts would have to be provided. Suffice to say that is not going to happen.
Gary, can you confirm this will only be the production version?
Gary:wave:


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I could see them following the Polar Lights 1/1000 kit with additional bridge/bussard/dish, etc... Parts. Yes the windows may not match perfectly, but the percentage of people who would even know the differences is rather small. Keep the hulls in TV Production stlye, just give a parts tree of additional things so the other variants can be made.

.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

spindrift said:


> The only version this kit could be released as is the TV PRODUCTION VERSION.
> To build the earlier pilot versions- the window arrangement and size are totally different. This is on the primary and secondary hulls so duplicate , large main hull parts would have to be provided. Suffice to say that is not going to happen.
> Gary, can you confirm this will only be the production version?
> Gary:wave:


The intention is to provide parts & decals for all 3 versions. We haven't yet discussed how to do this, but I assume you can do this with one set of main body parts, plus some combination of decals and/or window plugs and/or partially cutout windows on the inside of the main hull parts.

Gary


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

That would be too cool!


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Since I assume most folks would be building the series version, maybe the windows could be cut out for that configuration. Then they could have scoring on the inside showing window locations for the pilot version(s). You'd have to fill the series version windows though.

As much work as folks have put into the E kits so far, I'm sure it can be done.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

What is going on since some 3 years ago? First, Moebius and now R2. It seems that all dreams of us 40 to 50 years old kids are suddenly coming true. Why they last so long?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Gary K said:


> The intention is to provide parts & decals for all 3 versions. We haven't yet discussed how to do this, but I assume you can do this with one set of main body parts, plus some combination of decals and/or window plugs and/or partially cutout windows on the inside of the main hull parts.
> 
> Gary


_*YES!*_ :thumbsup:

This just keeps gettin' better. Down the road all we need is a 1/350 Klingon D7 and a 1/24 shuttlecraft _Galileo.[?I]

That said I would like to add that there are certain differences between versions that were not addressed in the PL 1/1000 kit, such as the running lights on the lower edge of the saucer. On the production version the lights are even (in side elevation) with the upper running lights. On the WNMHGB version, and presumably "The Cage" version as well, the lower running lights are set a bit further aft._


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> _*YES!*_ :thumbsup:
> 
> This just keeps gettin' better. Down the road all we need is a 1/350 Klingon D7 and a 1/24 shuttlecraft _Galileo.[?I]
> 
> That said I would like to add that there are certain differences between versions that were not addressed in the PL 1/1000 kit, such as the running lights on the lower edge of the saucer. On the production version the lights are even (in side elevation) with the upper running lights. On the WNMHGB version, and presumably "The Cage" version as well, the lower running lights are set a bit further aft._


_


The 1/1000 kit *did* address this, since it has molded-in lights at 7:00 and 4:00 on the lower saucer (as well as at 12:00 on the leading edge)._


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Gary,

I am SOOOOOOOOOO happy your involved on this project.

Years ago at WF, you showed me some of your drawings, and I can't tell you how much they impressed me then.

Two years ago when Bob and Jamie were at their first WF showing off their Akira and so forth, I of course asked them if they were going to do a 1/350 Enterprise. They of course at that time had no plans. We talked for a nice little while, and I went on my way for the weekend. When I was leaving the show on Sunday, I stopped by their booth and asked "well, what was the most requested model kit" (somewhat expecting their answer) and they replied "What do you think!" with the tone of they themselves amazed at the amount of requests for the 1/350 TOS E.

I said if your going to do it, then you need to get someone like Gary Kerr involved.
I'm certainly not saying I got you this job, your reputation on this subject definitly proceeds you.
I'm just happy to be one, of I'm sure many people who said, you need to get Gary involved in this.
I'm just so happy it actually came true.

So, my questions.............

1.) Are/were you involved in any parts breakdown?
For years, I've been making the suggestion that the compression rings on the nacelles should be separate stackable rings to avoid complicated seam sanding.
And my second suggestion for the nacelles be that the box-like structures towards the rear of the nacelles be seperate as well, so that the modeler making Dreadnaught and Scout conversions can rotate the nacelle along the long axis 90 degrees and then glue those boxes back on in the horizontal position.

2.) Are the inner grills of the Nacelles seperate pieces that could be put onto the clear parts tree so that those of us who want to do the blue glow that Roddenberry supposedly wanted (I can never remember where I heard that) for the TOS E could be done?

I believe I remember you saying that the primary saucer is slightly out of round...............Ummmmm I hope you didn't incorporate that into the plans did you  
I'd like to think that 23rd century engineers can build a round saucer.

A year is going to be really hard to wait for this thing.
Thanks


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

ClubTepes said:


> Gary,
> 
> I am SOOOOOOOOOO happy your involved on this project.


Not as happy as I am!



ClubTepes said:


> So, my questions.............
> 
> 1.) Are/were you involved in any parts breakdown?
> For years, I've been making the suggestion that the compression rings on the nacelles should be separate stackable rings to avoid complicated seam sanding.
> And my second suggestion for the nacelles be that the box-like structures towards the rear of the nacelles be seperate as well, so that the modeler making Dreadnaught and Scout conversions can rotate the nacelle along the long axis 90 degrees and then glue those boxes back on in the horizontal position.


Actually, the "compression rings" are actually "hydrogen filter inlets", per Rick Sternbach. I got Rick and Andrew Probert to suggest names for some of the parts of the ship with no official name, and I'd like to include them on the instruction sheet.

The Chinese are really good at making the parts fit, while minimizing seams. We'll see what can be done about those vents.



ClubTepes said:


> 2.) Are the inner grills of the Nacelles seperate pieces that could be put onto the clear parts tree so that those of us who want to do the blue glow that Roddenberry supposedly wanted (I can never remember where I heard that) for the TOS E could be done?


Like I've said, the guys at R2 are just now getting ready to start planning the model, but *I* would like a provision for lighting the inboard nacelles. Btw, the Howard Anderson Company's memo mentioned adding lighting effects to the inboard nacelles. They didn't mention a blue glow, but that would certainly be my choice.



ClubTepes said:


> I believe I remember you saying that the primary saucer is slightly out of round...............Ummmmm I hope you didn't incorporate that into the plans did you


But don't you want an exact replica of the Enterprise? 



ClubTepes said:


> I'd like to think that 23rd century engineers can build a round saucer.


Oh, the engineers can build a round saucer, but there was that unfortunate accident in the starship parking lot... Actually, the saucer is slightly out of round, the circular grid lines aren't concentric, the radial grid lines aren't symmetrical, the 3 engraved circles on the lower saucer are misshapen, etc.

Gary


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

"Well,there goes perfection"


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Gary,
First I want to thank you for taking time to answer questions when I'm sure you'd rather be doing something else.

I have a question about the nacelles as well. Namely, Have you thought about producing them in segments, rather than complete "tubes"? 

After building the big Seaview, I was thinking the same engineering (the slip joint in the middle of the hull) could be used on the nacelles of the Enterprise.

Common wisdom says that there are plating joints down the lenght of the Nacelles and if you planned your part joint at one of those, then it would be easily blended into the paint job and on the production end, you wouldnt have to make room in the box for the full lenght parts. (plus I'm thinking that if the joint was near the pylon, it would re-inforce that area to address the "sagging" issue.

Just askin'


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Good lord, no! Please give us full-length nacelle halves! I hate radial seams!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

John,
are you following me?

If the seams are as well engineered as the one on the seaview, it would be no trouble to sand.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Good lord, no! Please give us full-length nacelle halves! I hate radial seams!


Yeah, I have to agree with the Payne man, here. I'd love to see some recessed joint lines as on the original but don't want to have to deal with a plethora of problems that could result with my luck from having to plug the nacelles together.

In addition, I think it'd be cheaper to produce with full length nacelle halves and put energy into other aspects. There will be loads of tutorials/inspirational builds for those wishing to do special mods.


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

Don't you guys mean circumferential instead of radial or "lenght <sic> of the Nacelles"?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

mb1k said:


> Don't you guys mean circumferential instead of radial . . .


You are correct, sir!



> From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radial
> 
> 1. arranged like radii or rays.
> 2. having spokes, bars, lines, etc., arranged like radii, as a machine.
> 3. made in the direction of a radius; going from the center outward or from the circumference inward along a radius: a radial cut.


Still, I instantly knew what he meant and that frightens me :drunk:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Whatsa matta? you afraid of a few more pieces? 

I'm remembering the horror of trying to keep that long continuous seam even on the 18".

Plus I'm thinking that smaller pieces are more stable and less likely to warp (Yes I realized the irony even as I typed it)


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Gary,
> First I want to thank you for taking time to answer questions when I'm sure you'd rather be doing something else.
> 
> I have a question about the nacelles as well. Namely, Have you thought about producing them in segments, rather than complete "tubes"?
> ...


I haven't given much in-depth thought to anything, other than worrying about keeping the nacelles & saucer from drooping. Remember - R2 is just now starting to do some serious budgeting and planning for the model, but yours & other people's comments are something that they can keep in mind, as planning progresses. From a space-saving point of view, there's no compelling reason to produce the nacelles in segments, since the nacelles, minus the front & rear endcaps, are barely larger than the saucer.

Common wisdom is wrong about the circumferential seams on the nacelles. I've examined hi-res, unpublished photos of the 11-footer (they're not mine, so I can't release them), and there's no sign of cosmetically-applied lines. One set of structural seams is just aft of the pylons, where the rolled-metal aft 2/3 of the nacelles joins the solid wood front 1/3. The other seams are on the port side of each nacelle (away from the camera), where the ends of the rolled metal meet. 

Gary


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Gary,
Hey, Thanks for the reply!

The thing about common wisdom is that there's too much of the former and not enough of the latter.

I'm glad for the inference (at least) that you are planning on making the saucer pieces complete and not in sections. Will it be in two main pieces, or do you think there will there be window inserts in the rim (like the refit)?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

mb1k said:


> Don't you guys mean circumferential instead of radial or "lenght <sic> of the Nacelles"?


I realized that after I posted, but I knew someone would be happy to correct me.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

To me, just getting a 1/350 TOS 1701 kit, is enough! However way I have to do it to get it together, is not important, why whine about it, we are model builders.....right?


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

Lloyd Collins said:


> we are model builders.....right?


*Assemblers*


:tongue:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I wonder if one way to help prevent 'nacelle droop' might be to vary the thickness of the plastic of the parts? Not suggesting it go 'vacuum form' thin aft of the pylon but shaving it down some, so the forward part has a thicker...no, wait, I don't think you'd get that significant a mass difference even at 1/350 scale.

Because IIRC from the old AMT kit, it wasn't just weight making them droop, there was a torsional twist imposed at the pylon. 

Only thing I can think of, and it's inelegant as all hell, is a stiffener running up the pylon and at least partially down the length of the nacelle. I know there was an aftermarket brace made for the 1/350 refit, but I also know Gary probably worked his fingers bloody trying to find a better, 'in box' solution.

Maybe Teflon? no, something...ah well. 

Oh, I wanted to say, Thank You in advance Gary, for all the hard work and obvious love you put into the task. We do live in quite interesting times


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

mb1k said:


> *Assemblers*
> 
> 
> :tongue:


Thank you for that correction.:thumbsup:


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Gary,
> Hey, Thanks for the reply!
> 
> The thing about common wisdom is that there's too much of the former and not enough of the latter.
> ...


Remember - nobody's made any decisions about the engineering of the model's parts yet. If the Refit's saucer is in 2 main pieces, I assume they could do the same with the TOS E's. Since the Production & Pilot versions' saucers have slightly different window arrangements, window inserts like the Refit's might be a good solution.

Gary


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Steve H said:


> I know there was an aftermarket brace made for the 1/350 refit, but I also know Gary probably worked his fingers bloody trying to find a better, 'in box' solution.


Naw, no blood yet. Maybe a callous on my index finger from using my mouse to draft the Jupiter 2 plans last fall & winter, and then the TOS E this summer. I think the R2 guys will probably give the Chinese a crack at designing non-droopy nacelles & saucer first. Repeat - nobody's done any design on the kit yet. I've only drawn the detailed plans of the spaceship, then shrunk them down to 1/350 scale. 



Steve H said:


> Oh, I wanted to say, Thank You in advance Gary, for all the hard work and obvious love you put into the task. We do live in quite interesting times


You're welcome!

Gary


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I could be wrong about this, but aren't the main differences in window arrangement between the Pike era version and the Kirk era (production) mostly in terms of extra windows added? The most obvious example (to me anyway) are those four familiar windows on the upper leading starboard edge (and presumably port as well). On the pilot version(s) you see simply four windows, but on the production version you see an extra rectangular window added to the lower edge of the saucer as well as two small round windows with one on either side of the now five window arrangement.

Pilot version: - - - -

Production: . - - - - _ .

I haven't a pic immediately handy, but does anyone get what I'm saying? As faithful as we'd like to be to both versions we should keep in mind that both versions still represent the very same ship only at different periods of her operational service. I'd think this would be similar in regards to the window arrangement on the dorsal as well as the secondary hull--more windows added.

I know the windows on the underside of the saucer are different also because they eliminated at least two and replaced them with what look like hatches.

Pilot: - - - - -
Production: - - l - -

One thing I think I'd rather not see are grid lines already etched into the upper saucer surface unless they are very, _very_ subtle. In earlier builds I've seen where folks have added the lines I think they're too obvious and blatantly out of scale, particularly on 1/1000 scale kits. On kits that small I'm inclined to just not bother with the grid lines.

Having the inboard nacelle grids or inserts clear mighn't be a bad idea. If you want to light up the inboard nacelles then you can, but if you want to faithfully replicate what you see onscreen then you just paint them over. Same with the pilot version's nacelle caps as well as the impulse exhaust ports.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> I could be wrong about this, but aren't the main differences in window arrangement between the Pike era version and the Kirk era (production) mostly in terms of extra windows added? The most obvious example (to me anyway) are those four familiar windows on the upper leading starboard edge (and presumably port as well). On the pilot version(s) you see simply four windows, but on the production version you see an extra rectangular window added to the lower edge of the saucer as well as two small round windows with one on either side of the now five window arrangement.
> 
> Pilot version: - - - -
> 
> ...


No, I get what you mean. It's not logical to think they puttied over all the windows and carved new ones in, that's way too much effort, at least seems to me. But *adding* extra, yeah, that should be easy. It's not like they put grain-of-wheat bulbs behind each and every porthole, right?

altho...back then, if they had easy access to the interior, it's not impossible they WOULD light each window with it's own bulb, but there's no real benefit to that, the resolution of the finished effect wouldn't really...

Argh! 

It's so easy to over-think this. I know were I Roddenberry I would think being able to control each and every light in all the portholes would be something that an effect could be put into a story, and give flexiblity to the effects. 

Then again I could see them building a large close-up section of the hull to get that shot, like they did for Star Trek Phase II. 

bleah.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Thanks again for answering our questions Gary, and for being accessible. 
Of course I have more questions. 

Have you revised your drawings of the base design since the DS9 episode?

Does T2 give you free reign with the design?

Do you expect any compromise on the design, in order to make it work as a kit?


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

Hi Gary. The fact that you had hi-res (unreleased) pics of the eleven footer makes me feel VERY comfortable about the project. This, and your talent, should give round 2 the upper hand in creating the finest TOS E to date. It was a long wait, but I'm ubber impressed that this is in capable hands, AND I would also like to thank you for your research on this to make it happen (and The J-2).
This will surely be the crowning jewel in my model collection, and for the first time I will light it with the spinning nacelle fans. I'm talking the works here, now matter how long it takes to achieve it.
Good show to every one involved in making this happen.
Now if you could (down the road) just convince Tom to do a 1/350 D-7 instead of the one time proposed K'tinga I could have the largest battle diorama to ever grace my ceiling!
James Webb
Jim and Judys Horror Models .com


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

Wasn't the Pike era E much smaller in size than the Kirk era E?
Anyhow I think the windows themselves are individually LARGER on the pilot/Pike E, this looks like it on the Polar Lights decals for the 1/1000 E.
Gary


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

spindrift said:


> Wasn't the Pike era E much smaller in size than the Kirk era E?
> Anyhow I think the windows themselves are individually LARGER on the pilot/Pike E, this looks like it on the Polar Lights decals for the 1/1000 E.
> Gary


I think lighting the windows would create an optical illusion that the windows are larger. The ship itself was rescaled from 540' to 947' during pre-production of The Cage I believe, and so the ship (and of course the 11" filming model) were the same size.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Lighted shapes always appear larger with a darker surround- it is called visual blooming. We have a sample at work showing this effect when going over designs with customers. A lighted header with trans blue background and open letters looks much larger that open background with trans blue letters the same size. The glow spreads at the edge, flaring out, the effect is reversed with the darker letters were the flare closes over the letter.

.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Gary,
What is your stance on the windows on the port edge of the Saucer? are you keeping to what was on the filming model (the 2 windows on the port forward quarter) or are you mirroring the starboard layout?

I favor the mirrored layout. Not only does it give you more windows, but makes more sence logically that the the saucer would have symmetry. My chief evidence would be that when the ship was shown going right to left, they flipped the decals and filmed the same "finished" side of the model, so they clearly intended the port side of the ship to match the starboard. If the windows in the dorsal and secondary hull are to be considered gospel, then the saucer rim windows must be as well.

The CG ship in the remastered episodes has the mirrored windows (I know that must be taken with a grain of salt) and every incarnation of the Enterprise since TOS has been symmetrical.

perhaps if you go with window inserts, you can provide an insert for both versions.

thanks for your time on this


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'm thinkin', provide all possible windows open, then we can fill the not-used one for the vesrion being built. I'd rather fill than cut out, 'cuase I always manage to mangle a cutout.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Steve H said:


> I wonder if one way to help prevent 'nacelle droop' might be to vary the thickness of the plastic of the parts? Not suggesting it go 'vacuum form' thin aft of the pylon but shaving it down some, so the forward part has a thicker...no, wait, I don't think you'd get that significant a mass difference even at 1/350 scale.
> 
> Because IIRC from the old AMT kit, it wasn't just weight making them droop, there was a torsional twist imposed at the pylon.
> 
> ...


Two words:

Carbon fiber.

Three more words:

Stainless steel hardware.

It's been a long time since a Big Build, but my day job has me thinking outside the box a lot and there's a lot I'm bring back to the modeling bench.

Since the glory days of LightSheet I've been participating in a number of cutting-edge projects, from handheld bomb sniffers (basically a mass spectrometer and computer in a package the size of a jumbo Dustbuster) to flight components for the F-22 and F-35 aircraft programs.

I've learned how to look at stuff with the mindset not of "that's a spoon" but of "I don't care what it's called... what can that thing do?" The downside is that I end up with a lot of stuff on my shelves!

I look at my bottles of model cement (good stuff... Tenax, other types) and run the whole performance analysis gamut. What does it do? How does it do it? What are the benefits? What are the disadvantages?

In the end, I want to avoid solvent-based assembly products. They shrink as solvent outgasses, and how long does it really take for truly adequate outgassing at the center of larger joins?

After working a long time with really tiny fasteners, I'm strongly leaning toards using screws, nuts, threaded inserts anf ather mechanical methods, augmented with catalyzed adhesives and fillers and single-component "super glues," singly or combined based on a given joint's performance requirements.

The biggest caveat would be any allowance for CTE (coefficient of thermal expansion) differences between the base materials, typically styrene, vs. that of metal fasteners like stainless steel screws and any stress-induced fracturing to joints (mostly a cosmetic issue since the fastener isn't likely to fail in a plastic model!)

Just kicking in stream-of-consciousness mode to touch on random scenarios:

Repeatable torque to gain max fastening power vs. damage threshold (distortion/breakage of parts)

Reverse assembly: straight-through bolting for hidden joins, no adhesive. Screw into threaded insert and/or threaded mounting block.

Installation of matched mounting blocks: fab little blocks for face-to-face mating (sounds like fun...) align, join w/hardware, attach pair to straddle joint, attach to prepared surface with *high-performance* (especially shear strength) product or technique (bolt-on the blocks that are bolted together!) Join/unjoin parts to your hearts content before final assy. Possibility for large gaps: Apply mold release to one of mating parts, temp assy with harware, apply catalyzed putty and pressing well into join gaps. Allow to cure, work to final shape, separate parts for further processing as desired. Also, apply release or barrier to one part, bolt parts together, attach a flange to untreated part, spanning the seam to act as alignment aid, joint stiffener, light leak blocker, etc.


Carbon fiber... why braze brass tubing or weld steel when you can epoxy or bolt together a carbon fiber endoskeleton armature! Lay in a few carbon fiber round or square profile rods or tubes to stiffen pylons. Build a carbon fiber armature Tinkertoy style... doe they still make "jacks?" Those little metal game pieces, the game was played using a ball and you'd snatch the pieces while bouncing the ball... Use jacks as connection nodes for carbon fiber tubes, or find a functional equivalent to jacks. Or fab little cubes or other node shapes from aluminum or stainless blocks and drill hole for carbon fiber tubes/rods. Again, CTE may need to be considered, maybe not.

And so on... !!! We've got these huge models now... we've got a lot of room to work in and they really need a new approach to building to keep them mechanically sound and true. While the initial investment of time, effort and materials cost will be higher the long-term results may offset that. What's a no-sag nacelle worth to you in, say, ten years?


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Damn, I forgot something.

THANK YOU, GARY!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

TrekFX,

Two words, retail price! All that sounds great, but what's going to be the cost effectiveness to the manufacturer? I know you realize this and you were throwing some great ideas out there. I'd love to see a CF armature for my 1/350s! But how much would it cost the buyer in the end? 

But since you brought it up, I've got scrap CF sheet in the garage, though not enough for a STMP armature. However, I might throw around the idea of doing a wet lay-up for my self utilizing the commercial aluminum offering as a template... hmm.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Rather than address all the individual questions re. the windows on the TOS E, I thought I'd make a generalized posting. First, a quick history of the windows and how they were constructed (with emphasis on the sec hull): The sec hull of the 11-footer was built like a barrel, with lengthwise wooden planks formed around circular bulkheads, and the saucer pylon (Mike Okuda's preferred term for the "interconnecting dorsal") was also made from wood. 

The 1st Pilot version of the model had no lighting, and was filmed, suspended from wires, in front of a black background. All its windows were painted on. Electricity was added to the 2nd Pilot model, which was filmed on a stand in front of a blue screen. Because the sec hull was made from thick wooden planks, instead of thin plastic sheet, windows and portholes were cut from lengths of rectangular and round acrylic rods and inserted through holes cut in the hull. The interior of the hull looks like it was decorated with ice cubes. The windows in the saucer pylon & saucer were made from thinner slices of acrylic rod. Because of the way the windows were constructed, a single light bulb could illuminate multiple windows. Two large internal bulkheads hindered access to the center third of the hull, and, consequently, none of the windows in the middle of the sec hull are lighted. On the saucer pylon, light bulbs were inserted into the port side of the pylon, the side away from the camera. Non-lighted windows were painted on the hull. 

A single bulb illuminated each of the 3 sets of windows on the sides of the saucer (the aft portside windows weren't lighted, to save money). Access to the bulbs was provided by the illuminated Plexiglas rectangles on the upper hull. On the front of the saucer, a single light bulb was flanked by two painted circles. On the Production version, the bulb was moved inside the saucer, with access via the round Plex sheet on the saucer's upper surface, near the bow. The 2 painted circles were replaced by translucent plastic.

During the conversion to the Production version, additional holes were cut into the hull for lighted windows, and the arrangement of painted-on windows was tweaked. A lighted window was added high on the sec hull, aft of the nacelle pylons. It appears in a set of b&w "beauty shots" of the model (some of which appeared in The Making of Star Trek), but was painted over prior to filming.

On replicas of the TOS E produced thus far, the starboard windows have been mirrored onto the port side of the ship, and Mike Okuda thinks that this practice should be followed for the PL kit. We both realize that it's quite unlikely that the window & room arrangement on a quasi-military ship would be exactly mirrored P/S, so I'd like to make it possible for more advanced modelers to somehow vary the arrangement on the port side, including the saucer. Perhaps additional window openings could be scored on the inside of the hull. 

I'll address all the window issues with Bob and Jamie, including the window arrangements on the Pilot versions of the ship. I want to reemphasize that no design work has actually started on the kit yet, but we'll come up with solutions for all these problems (knock on wood).

Gary


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Sounds good to me. :thumbsup:


----------



## eimb1999 (Sep 8, 2007)

My two cents on the nacelle droop problem:

With every model of the Enterprise (both the TOS and the Refit in all available scales) I've bever seen a problem with nacelle drooping. The "secret" is to make sure the pylons are glued together well, making sure the front and leading edges of them are sealed solidly, forming a kind of monocoque construction like an aluminum airplane wing (or, for that matter, a monokote or even tissue covered model airplane wing!) which does not twist easily. 

With the refit at 1/350th scale, when the pylon was properly glued and mounted, twisting or drooping under normal circumstances is simply not a problem. Just glue it all together solidly. Same with the TOS 22" cutaway version. I built that one years ago, a friend of mine has it and after about ten years it still hasn't begun to show any signs of sagging.

With the 18" version of the TOS model as it is currently available, I have found that you can grab the entire finished model from the back of one of the warp engines and lift it up completely and even then it only bends slightly, even with the entire weight of the model on that point. The only version you can't do that with is the original release where they had that funky plug-and-key assembly holding the pylon to the fuselage... excuse me... secondary hull where it was not even possible to glue it well, not enough surface area, so you had to modify it...

Now I'm not saying that this will be the case with the 1/350th model but I think that if the pylons are made of heavy/thick enough plastic and the edges can be sufficiently sealed, and that they can be accurately and solidly plugged into the fuse... uh... 2ndary hull, there shouldn't be any problems. I'm sure the factory will be made aware of this and design accordingly.

Saucer droop? Well, as long as there is a fillet put in place at the back of the saucer that runs fore and aft where the neck attaches, that won't be a problem either. In fact, if they made fillets that allowed the top and bottom of the saucer to actually meet each other inside and it was keyed with a sawtooth kind of pattern (kinda hard to get glue in there) that would help eliminate the lateral movement that would cause it to warp or sag (yeah, I know, that description is confusing. If the guys who matter want me to I can draw it for them).

But I don't think that'll be an issue. It's not for the 1/350th refit. Just gotta make sure everything is glued well.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Thanks to all involved for pushing this project forward at R2, their subsidiaries, contractors and even their family pets.

...

Regarding all the customization, windows and such, it seems r2 should just give us a superstructure, a stack of styrene and an instruction sheet that simple says "Have at it!" (I guess the decals sheet could be large blocks of black, red and gold for custom cutting.)

We gotta relax, lest this dream of ours turn into anxiety-driven nightmare. We will all be happy to various degrees with whatever is released and we are all guaranteed huge smiles on our faces when opening that box. Let the customization occur from there. 

I was momentarily thinking that if R2 released the plans, it would quiet folks' concerns. Then I came to my senses and realized the rivet counters would jump all over it. Cue nightmare.

:wave:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Gary,
thanks again. It's great to see such open lines of communication. 
Better now than when you've already nailed down the designs and you get bombarded with "why didn't cha's"

I'm sure you are the best man for the job


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

Model Man said:


> I was momentarily thinking that if R2 released the plans, it would quiet folks' concerns. Then I came to my senses and realized the rivet counters would jump all over it. Cue nightmare.
> 
> :wave:


M²,

You'd think there'd be some happy compromise though? I, for one, couldn't care less whether I see the plans or not before I rip off the shrink wrap and rejoice in my upcoming TOS 1/350'ness. Wouldn't releasing/sharing and showing what's happening along the way would go a long way to either eliminate or cut in half the content of future thread stickies such as *PL Inaccuracies and Fixes*? I remember some collaborating on the boards going on with TPTB about the refit, and our current thread is wonderful as a sounding board also.

In the end, it's a compromise between the economics of getting something "good enough" out there for the right price, and "perfect" at an exclusive price.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Sounds to me that all the "I wants" about the windows and 1st pilot, 2nd pilot, production parts included, will over inflate the price beyond what we pay now for big kits (Jupiter 2, Seaview, Refit Enterprise and they are worth it!). I would be, as many would also, happy with the production Enterprise. Producing just this as a stock kit with no add ons would keep the price down and make it a more sellable product. For the fewer who woukldn't mind spending more for the choice to build any of the three, produce a conversion set (eliminating aftermarket kits and increasing R2 revenue!) with the additional parts, decals and window placements. you would still spend as much, just for two boxes. Just my business side thinking. I can't wait for the kit in any form!


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

Like the Tamiya business model excellent; PL could product their very own line of accurizing or conversion kits. Keeping the money all in the same place.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

My wish list is small. Hanger deck, shuttlecraft or two, and clear parts. Since it will be done anyway, no problem. The size of the model, and since I only like the Production version, one will do. 

Gary, thank you for your work on the lady, and for all the info you are posting.:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

personally, I'm hoping that the windows aren't clear inserts but recessed. IMO, they should be engineered so that those who wish to light it can easily cut out the windows or pop them out like a chad on a ballot.

I'm just thinking; which would be easier and more cost effective to produce, a bunch of clear inserts or no clear windows with thin(ner) styrene to punch or cut out? Also, it makes it easier for the modeler who doesn't want to light his model and makes a task for the modeler who does want to light his kit.

Although, I imagine that just an open hole doesn't make for good widow lights...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Gary, it's _very _encouraging to see how knowledgable you are, and how much thought you guys are putting into this. I'm fascinated learning how the old girl was originally built. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

mb1k said:


> TrekFX,
> 
> Two words, retail price! All that sounds great, but what's going to be the cost effectiveness to the manufacturer?



Sorry, I was mentioning this as a builder's option, by no means part of the retail unit!


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

Magesblood said:


> I'm just thinking; which would be easier and more cost effective to produce, a bunch of clear inserts or no clear windows with thin(ner) styrene to punch or cut out?


as i understand the way molds for styrene are done, its far easier to make separate parts for each bank of windows around the perimeter of the saucer than to make either recessed areas or a clear through hole in the saucer itself. 
i dont think it makes any difference for the secondary hull and neck.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

that would make sense. It explains why they did that with the refit saucer


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I don't have a PL 1/350 refit so I'm not sure what you fellers are talking about. But I do remember the old AMT/Ertl refit and I absolutely hated the way they did the saucer windows. The damned things never fit right.


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> I don't have a PL 1/350 refit so I'm not sure what you fellers are talking about. But I do remember the old AMT/Ertl refit and I absolutely hated the way they did the saucer windows. The damned things never fit right.


totally. The PL windows were better - marginally so.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

The good thing about the saucer windows, if they are seperate parts, is you don't have to worry about sanding off detail like on the refit with the sensor stripes. It is just a smoooooooth suface all the way around!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

It doesn't matter at all to me whether the saucer edge is composed of separate parts or not, I am just plain excited that this kit is actually being produced. I'll take it in whatever form that Gary, the fine folks at Round2, and contractors in China determine is the best way to produce it.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

For me, the simply fact that I won't have to worry about painting (several) layers of aztecs patterns (as with the TMP) makes everything else looks extremely easy.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Fernando Mureb said:


> For me, the simply fact that I won't have to worry about painting (several) layers of aztecs patterns (as with the TMP) makes everything else looks extremely easy.


Can't argue with that.


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

though, a subtle aztec would look killer.


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Magesblood said:


> though, a subtle aztec would look killer.


Agreed...like what appears on the Remastered DVD's.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> I don't have a PL 1/350 refit so I'm not sure what you fellers are talking about. But I do remember the old AMT/Ertl refit and I absolutely hated the way they did the saucer windows. The damned things never fit right.


Amen, brother! I would much rather they do the production windows with clear inserts as on the _NX-01_ model kit. 

The extra windows could then be (puttied, sanded, and) painted over if one wanted a _Cage _or a _WNMHGB _version.


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

1701ALover said:


> Agreed...like what appears on the Remastered DVD's.


 Another hot point of contention! I'm in the camp of "Don't like the Remastered" footage. Too cartooney, anyone have a link to the demo tape of the effects house that originally was involved with Trek and submitted a demo of their take on the remastered footage. It looked leaps and bounds better than what Okuda and company went with. Had digital grain and everything, looked period correct, didn't disturb the original style and look of TOS and it's what they should've gone with.

Joe


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

mb1k said:


> Another hot point of contention! I'm in the camp of "Don't like the Remastered" footage. Too cartooney, anyone have a link to the demo tape of the effects house that originally was involved with Trek and submitted a demo of their take on the remastered footage. It looked leaps and bounds better than what Okuda and company went with. Had digital grain and everything, looked period correct, didn't disturb the original style and look of TOS and it's what they should've gone with.
> 
> Joe


Joe, I agree. Tho I like the concept of what they did, the end result is a ship that shows no sense of "mass" as it moves. It zips by in many shot and ruins the illusion of a nearly 1,000 foot long vessel. I love how the old girl tries to limp away from the Reliant in the Wrath of Kahn. You don't get that effect with CG. Things like the "Doomsday Machine" battles would benefit from well done CG, the Enterprise coming along side the Botany Bay in "Space Seed" were done beyond well for 1967 TV standrds!


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

I'm more interested in following a discussion of the forthcoming kit than hashing out whether the digital effects were any good. That sounds to me like it could go in another thread. I think it's dangerous to start talking about clear window pieces vs. punch-outs, or gird lines, or single piece rims versus inserts, lest we drive enthusiastic Round 2 guys crazy with all the arguing about nits we can't control, canceling each other out with differing opinions. 

What really interests me is whether or not the company has made the big financial commitment. At some point, they're going to have to sink hundreds of thousands of simoleons into tooling. Right up until they mail that check, this thing can be canceled. 

But now, with all this detail being released, I find myself really enthusiastic about some day getting this kit, even though my hopes have been dashed before. Is there anyone watching who really knows who can say when the trigeger might or might not be pulled? What has to happen before we know they did or didn't do that?


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Clear plastic windows is a must!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Kit said:


> I'm more interested in following a discussion of the forthcoming kit than hashing out whether the digital effects were any good. That sounds to me like it could go in another thread. I think it's dangerous to start talking about clear window pieces vs. punch-outs, or gird lines, or single piece rims versus inserts, lest we drive enthusiastic Round 2 guys crazy with all the arguing about nits we can't control, canceling each other out with differing opinions.
> 
> What really interests me is whether or not the company has made the big financial commitment. At some point, they're going to have to sink hundreds of thousands of simoleons into tooling. Right up until they mail that check, this thing can be canceled.
> 
> But now, with all this detail being released, I find myself really enthusiastic about some day getting this kit, even though my hopes have been dashed before. Is there anyone watching who really knows who can say when the trigeger might or might not be pulled? What has to happen before we know they did or didn't do that?


Calm down, the "trigger" was pulled if you read the whole thread! It goes back a ways so if you missed it:

"I can’t wait to get started. Since receiving the plans, we have gotten approval from the guys up stairs to get costs, etc to start the mock up. That was great news to hear. It will all happen one step at a time. It’s almost time to reserve the space in the dry dock…"

This was posted on Round 2's website. Seems cut and dry to me. The only thing that will piss them off is complaining about things that have not been designed yet. We get what we get from a group of people who know the business better than any of us. Sit back and enjoy the conversations and speculations as long as they are respectful!


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

RSN said:


> Calm down, the "trigger" was pulled if you read the whole thread!


Yeah, thanks, but as much as I'd love to believe that, I did read the whole thread and I'm unconvinced. 

The Round 2 blog included this bit of information:

_Since receiving the plans, we have gotten approval from the guys up stairs to get costs, etc to start the mock up. That was great news to hear. It will all happen one step at a time._

What that says to me is that every round of spending on this project requires new authorization -- in fact, just to _figure out _what the next step will cost requires authorization. 

When they get the costs and approve the actual spending to develop a prototype, that'll be great, a real good sign. But even then, my impression is that the big money is tooling. So, if you read my whole post, you'll see that's what I'm worried about -- that the plug could be pulled at any one of the many remaining steps before that big nut has to be covered.

I do agree, though, that the nit-picking so early probably won't help.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I think if they put it on their website as an announced kit, it will happen. The question of cost probably extends to engieering to satify all the nit picking; pilot, 2nd pilot production variants all in one kit, hangar deck shuttlecraft and so on. That is just how I read it, they are not like the "fly by night" companies that put all their eggs in a basket shapped like a Constitution Class Starship and delivered a substandard product out of most peoples price range. The sucess R2 had with the Refit assures them this kit will sell! The question I see is what form it will take. My personal opinion, worth only something to me, is an as perfect as possible Production version with decals for the fleet (hangar deck optional, I could built one)!


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

All of this speculation and excitement about this kit just goes to show how passionate we are about the subject. With the market for plastic kits getting smaller each year and with all of the other electronic passtimes taking peoples shrinking ammount of spendable income away from OUR hobby. I think Round2 like the other model producers are trying there best to give us baby boomers what we want. With the success of the 1/350 Polar Lights refit they know that this kit will sell! Getting financial approval for the development of this kit is no different than any other. Its just part of the process. I remain positive that we will get this kit in due time and look forward to it!

Personally the series Enterprise based on the 11 footer is my choice! The optional parts for the 1st and 2nd pilot versions would be nice but may drive the price of the kit up somewhat. Time will tell.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

As Oddball would say, all these positive waves! Maybe it will happen after all.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

mb1k said:


> Another hot point of contention! I'm in the camp of "Don't like the Remastered" footage. Too cartooney, anyone have a link to the demo tape of the effects house that originally was involved with Trek and submitted a demo of their take on the remastered footage. It looked leaps and bounds better than what Okuda and company went with. Had digital grain and everything, looked period correct, didn't disturb the original style and look of TOS and it's what they should've gone with.
> 
> Joe


Something I went on about for quite a bit awhile back on the TrekBBS.

I'd also love to see that earlier footage.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

To save the company money, perhaps they could put out one version and that would be the series production version of the 11 footer. That way, the aftermarket companies can come in with conversion kits later. I see that with model planes all the time. The cockpit can often be sub par on a new plane kit. This saves them money developing tools for a super accurate cockpit because 90% of builders will be fine with a basic cockpit. The other 10% buy the resin upgrade and can get what they want that way.


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

Back on topic. I too agree that the basic kit should be the most economical version possible allowing for wider accessability price wise (I plan on buying mine at Hobby Lobby with the 40% any way). Then, they can do the Tamiya like accessory kits and add ons, or the aftermarket garage industry will continue to march on doing what it does and grind out some excellent update/accurizing parts.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I'm just darn grateful.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

mb1k said:


> Back on topic. I too agree that the basic kit should be the most economical version possible allowing for wider accessability price wise . . . the aftermarket garage industry will continue to march on doing what it does and grind out some excellent update/accurizing parts.


My thoughts, exactly! :thumbsup:

There can be many distractions from their getting the basic shape and visible parts correctly done. I'd rather they spend more time on the important things. 

For example, despite all the work that went into the refit model, I think fatigue finally made them say "good enough" even though the impulse engine was not proportioned correctly--for just one example. That' s my only real gripe with that kit but it does make my point of the priorities involved.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

No matter how much time is spent on a model master things will always need to be corrected. Even ILM could not make a perfect scaled replica of the Falcon and they had the original people and filming model to work with. I think perhaps the only accurate replicas may be from digital models used in filming where the original data set can be 3D grown in scale, although simplification would be done for molding.

.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

All this reminds me of the ramp-up to the Jupiter 2 kit comming soon. I guess I am in the minority who is willing to see the kit with my own eyes to determine what I think needs to be corrected. Most of the time, I make the changes myself with the skills I have learned. That's why we build isn't it? Cuts cost a lot. About the only thing I buy aftermarket is lighting, but then that is not in the kit to begin with. I say lets let them produce an accurate kit that will appeal to the mass market, and let us make changes as we see fit. My opinion, your mileage may vary.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Richard Baker said:


> No matter how much time is spent on a model master things will always need to be corrected.


I'll grant you that. It would probably take some of the fun of making models if one can't make his own little improvements here and there.


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

I don't know, something of her legendary status should be as accurate as possible right out of the box...

for once.


----------



## BARRYZ28 (Mar 3, 2007)

I don't want to buy resin A-B deck after market parts to build her up right.
I don't want to buy clear domes for the bussard collectors.
I want fan blades for the bussards as well, so I can add my own LED's and motors without aftermarket electronics.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Magesblood said:


> I don't know, something of her legendary status should be as accurate as possible right out of the box...
> 
> for once.


As possible or desired. Nobody in their right mind would want a model accurate to the 11' model. It's saucer is out of round, the groves under the saucer saucer looked like they were done by hand. You can see the planking on the 2nd hull, and the hull is isn't symmetrical(at least from the front) etc etc. 
It would be harder to build truly accurate replica. 

But there is another problem which is perception, I've seen ST fans argue about nonexistent details. Or worse they think they know everything about it, even more than the guys that made it. No matter what is done somebody won't be happy, to them I would say, "be a modeler, fix it yourself". 

Remember-


Gary K said:


> Bring it on! If any of the know-it-all fanboys get pissy with me - and they will - I'm prepared to go all Merriman on their asses!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Atemylunch said:


> As possible or desired. Nobody in their right mind would want a model accurate to the 11' model. It's saucer is out of round, the groves under the saucer saucer looked like they were done by hand. You can see the planking on the 2nd hull, and the hull is isn't symmetrical(at least from the front) etc etc.
> It would be harder to build truly accurate replica.
> 
> But there is another problem which is perception, I've seen ST fans argue about nonexistent details. Or worse they think they know everything about it, even more than the guys that made it. No matter what is done somebody won't be happy, to them I would say, "be a modeler, fix it yourself".
> ...


Here, Here! I know what the Enterprise should look like as much as ANYONE, I have been watching it on TV for over 40 years. Original plans mean nothing, they were changed in construction, and details were drawn on with pencil. I know what I see, and that is how I want it to look. I don't care what PMS color the ship was painted in 1965, I want it to look like the light gray that appeared on my TV. As long as the proportions "look" correct, and shapes are accurate, I will be happy! Don't know how many "experts" paint the front end caps on the warp engines red because of the Smithsonian restoration in 1975, or put panel lines on that did not exist because of their restoration in the '90's. They may not be correct, but if that is how you want it to look on your build, do it! How boring would it be if there were 20 models posted that all looked alike?


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

I'm just saying it would be nice to have a kit that one doesn't have to accurize and spend the money on upgrade parts.

Don't mind me, I'm just a kit assembler.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Magesblood said:


> I'm just saying it would be nice to have a kit that one doesn't have to accurize and spend the money on upgrade parts.
> 
> Don't mind me, I'm just a kit assembler.


I for one do mind you sir. You represent the majority of the buying public. People who just want to build and display a nice model. That is what separates a hobby from an obsession! Stand and be proud, man, stand and be proud!!!


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

I just wanted to point out that the first pilot version's windows were all painted. So, to accurately depict that version, one need only fill in molded windows and either paint or decal new ones on.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Atemylunch said:


> Nobody in their right mind would want a model accurate to the 11' model.


Hey, I resemble that remark!

Here are a few in-progress shots from about six years ago of one of several 1/12 scale 11-footer model builds from the PL kit. This one is a 1st Pilot version as she was delivered 45 years ago. 


























These show the port side as it was on the studio model. There are no electrical nor mounts on this one. These photos were taken prior to the reshaping of the engine pylons to make them more accurate. There are other 2nd Pilot and Production versions in mini dioramas that I have been (slowly) working on over time. They have the mounts and electrical runs added.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Y'know, I've often wondered if anyone was hardcore enough to reproduce the actual filming model (as opposed to the theoretical starship), stand, wires, and all. Wow.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Wasn't there one modeler who used the PL 1000 to rep the shooting model on a blue screen stage with a man and camera?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

charonjr said:


> Wasn't there one modeler who used the PL 1000 to rep the shooting model on a blue screen stage with a man and camera?


I know the dio you are talking about. I think he used the one from the 3 ship set. It iwas in an old Modelers Resource mag.


----------

