# How accurate is the Round 2 AMT 1/537 Reliant?



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

For Round 2's AMT 1/537 Reliant, I know the saucer was made thicker and the sides made smoother.

Is there any other 'improvements'? Was the bridge dome changed?

Is the Round 2 re-release much of an improvement over the original tooling?

Does anyone have comparison pictures of the 2 kits?


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

As far as I am away the only difference is the thickened hull.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

crowe-t said:


> For Round 2's AMT 1/537 Reliant, I know the saucer was made thicker and the sides made smoother.
> 
> Is there any other 'improvements'? Was the bridge dome changed?
> 
> ...


Aside from the changes to the saucer rim and height, the kit is the same, but I believe the Bridge, B and C decks were re-shaped. However I found they're still kind of off. I have both kits, and I'm using parts from the two (and a 1/537 Enterprise) to make one good kit. Paragrafix makes a really great photo-etch kit for Reliant, and it includes drilling templates for the portholes so you can get them straight and properly spaced. I also got DLM resin parts for the Bridge, B and C decks which are considerably better. I have a few pics of my build, but she's been on hold for almost two years now.

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/showgallery.php?cat=775

As far as accuracy goes, the kit is passable. It's not great, but with some effort can be made to look much better. Much like any mediocre kit I guess.
It all depends on how much work you're willing to put into her. Just my two cents.


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

whiskeyrat said:


> Aside from the changes to the saucer rim and height, the kit is the same, but I believe the Bridge, B and C decks were re-shaped. However I found they're still kind of off. I have both kits, and I'm using parts from the two (and a 1/537 Enterprise) to make one good kit. Paragrafix makes a really great photo-etch kit for Reliant, and it includes drilling templates for the portholes so you can get them straight and properly spaced. I also got DLM resin parts for the Bridge, B and C decks which are considerably better. I have a few pics of my build, but she's been on hold for almost two years now.
> 
> http://photos.hobbytalk.com/showgallery.php?cat=775
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting the link to your pictures! You've done a lot of work and it shows.

So if I use an original, tooled kit, add the DLM bridge/BC deck and add some styrene spaces to correct the height of the saucer I won't need to pay extra for one of the newer(discontinued) Round 2 releases? 

How much do I have to add to correct the saucer's thickness on one of the original issue kits? 

BTW, what parts from the 1/537 Enterprise did you use? I did notice you filled in some panel lines on the lower saucer but I thought the Reliant was a smoothie???

Did you use the (nacelle) pylons from the original issue kit? I seem to remember reading, somewhere, that when Round 2 made the saucer thicker they just modified the pylons instead of making them taller?


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

crowe-t said:


> Thanks for posting the link to your pictures! You've done a lot of work and it shows.
> 
> So if I use an original, tooled kit, add the DLM bridge/BC deck and add some styrene spaces to correct the height of the saucer I won't need to pay extra for one of the newer Round 2 releases?
> 
> BTW, what parts from the 1/537 Enterprise did you use? I did notice you filled in some panel lines on the lower saucer but I thought the Reliant was a smoothie???


If you do use one of the old kits, you'll have to replace the saucer rim wall altogether, because it has this awful stair-step molding all the way around, ostensibly to simulate the angle. There are no portholes in the saucer rim either, just indentations suggesting them, so if you want to light her up you'd have to drill and cut anyway. But remember also you'll have to lengthen the _*engine pylons*_ as well, because you're making the _*entire ship*_ slightly taller, not just the saucer section. And yes, the kit was modified by simply making the gap in the pylons larger, instead of lengthening them. I used both kit parts to make mine the correct length. Simply saw off the tops of both parts at the differing part lines, and then siamese the correct-length parts together. Easy. I removed the lower saucer on my Reliant and spliced in a lower saucer from my old 1/537 Enterprise, because in my opinion it has a more correct curvature to it than the original kit part. So the tiles you see are the paneling from the Enterprise kit, filled in with putty and sanded down.


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

whiskeyrat said:


> If you do use one of the old kits, you'll have to replace the saucer rim wall altogether, because it has this awful stair-step molding all the way around, ostensibly to simulate the angle. There are no portholes in the saucer rim either, just indentations suggesting them, so if you want to light her up you'd have to drill and cut anyway. But remember also you'll have to lengthen the _*engine pylons*_ as well, because you're making the _*entire ship*_ slightly taller, not just the saucer section. I removed the lower saucer on my Reliant and spliced in a lower saucer from my old 1/537 Enterprise, because in my opinion it has a more correct curvature to it than the original kit part. So the tiles you see are the paneling from the Enterprise kit, filled in with putty and sanded down.


Did you use the pylons from the original issue kit or scratch build your own?


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

Lol I keep missing your posts by a couple of minutes! See my last post I included an edit.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

crowe-t said:


> How much do I have to add to correct the saucer's thickness on one of the original issue kits?


Sorry missed this one. About 3/32" should do it. Doesn't need much but it makes a huge difference.


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

whiskeyrat said:


> Lol I keep missing your posts by a couple of minutes! See my last post I included an edit.


That's funny, my last post was made at exactly the same time as your edit!


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

LOL! Tag you're it!


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

whiskeyrat said:


> LOL! Tag you're it!


BTW, how much would I have to add to the saucer, of the original tooled kit, to give it the correct thickness?


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

About 3/32", not much. I would suggest trying different thicknesses of strip styrene to see what looks best to your eye. I think it's well worth the effort to make the mods to this kit because it's a good scale and lends itself to more detail somewhat easily, although a lot of the existing detail could use some sharpening. Also I had to move the rear "trenches" above the hangar bays 1/8" closer amidships, which meant I had to rebuild the rear wall to move the hangar door openings to line up again, so there's a lot of cutting and pasting if you want a truly accurate kit. Nothing some elbow grease won't fix. Judging from your TOS Enterprise build I would say you would have no problem making this one look good!


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

Thanks for all of your help with this! I can't wait to see your finished.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

You're welcome! And I can't wait either! I'm hoping to get her back on the workbench later this year, wish me luck... Hope all I've posted here helps!


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

whiskeyrat said:


> You're welcome! And I can't wait either! I'm hoping to get her back on the workbench later this year, wish me luck... Hope all I've posted here helps!


I'm really looking forward to seeing you Reliant completed. From the looks of the work you've done so far it looks to be very accurate to the studio model.

One more thing, I assume the pylons will need to be lengthened the same 3/32" as the saucer?


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

crowe-t said:


> I'm really looking forward to seeing you Reliant completed. From the looks of the work you've done so far it looks to be very accurate to the studio model.
> 
> One more thing, I assume the pylons will need to be lengthened the same 3/32" as the saucer?


Right, the pylons get lengthened too. I suppose you could simply use the difference between the two pylon parts to get your overall measurement for changing the deck height, but again I suggest trying different thicknesses of strip styrene first to see what you like the best, then adjust the pylon length accordingly. It's all plastic, you can cut and change any of it, right? :tongue:


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

I might be getting an older tooled kit so I'd have to go by your measurement(3/32") and and eyeball it. I also have a couple of AMT 'smoothie' kits.

Are the smoothie saucers the correct height the Reliant saucer should be?

BTW, I looked at your pictures again and I see how moved the rear "trenches" above the hangar bays 1/8" closer amidship. It looks much more accurate that way. I hadn't noticed the trenches were too far out but then I don't have one of the AMT kits(yet) to see all the inaccuracies.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

crowe-t said:


> I might be getting an older tooled kit so I'd have to go by your measurement(3/32") and and eyeball it. I also have a couple of AMT 'smoothie' kits.
> 
> Are the smoothie saucers the correct height the Reliant saucer should be?
> 
> BTW, I looked at your pictures again and I see how moved the rear "trenches" above the hangar bays 1/8" closer amidship. It looks much more accurate that way. I hadn't noticed the trenches were too far out but then I don't have one of the AMT kits(yet) to see all the inaccuracies.


Actually now that you mention it, yes I believe the Enterprise saucer walls are pretty much the correct height, and that's the dimension I used to raise the rest of the deck. It's been a while since I've touched this kit, I've forgotten some of the build details... If you're looking to go *THAT* route (replacing the lower saucer), be forewarned it's kind of a headache, and there's a LOT of cutting and gluing, cutting and gluing... but I think it makes the ship look that much better. 

I didn't even know about the trenches myself until I saw a post here on HobbyTalk that mentioned the inaccuracy, so I cut the ones out of the old kit, cut the ones out of the NEW kit, then added some strip styrene to the outer edges, and cut the 1/8" off the INSIDE edge, (of the surrounding deck, not the trench parts, sorry shoulda clarified) and glued the nice, sharp-cut trenches from the old kit into the new position.


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

I'm not sure I'll replace the lower saucer(from a smoothie kit) but I'll most likely make all the other modifications you mentioned. 

I think I'll just modify one of the older kits, especially since you mentioned the trenches from the older kit are sharper. I can fix the saucer's thickness and edge and lengthen the pylons as well. I'll also use the DLM bridge and B/C decks.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

Well the parts are the same, sorry I meant that I had simply cut the sides sharp, because I destroyed the edges of the other ones when I cut them out, so I used the two from the old kit after CAREFULLY cutting *those* out. Also remember, because of the angle of the side walls, when you raise the upper deck of the kit, the deck will need to be wider, because the distance of the wall is further out, the higher you go. You'll need to compensate with some more strip styrene somewhere along the ships axis on both sides, to widen the deck properly.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

-saucer too thin
-weapons pod simplified
-roll bar too thin and missing recesses on front and back
-outer rim on saucer bottom too narrow
-stepped edges and sides of hull incorrect
-b/c decks incorrect with incorrect details
-the stepped area on top of saucer at the wrong angle and not the correst front slope either
-details/recessed area on top of flat engineering hull incorrect
-top grid incorrectly spaced
-many port holes incorrectly located on engineering hull
-bussards and intercoolers over-simplified
-details below hangar doors incorrect
-depending on version, some do and some do not have lower crystal

and the nacelles may or may not be too short. Can't remember how that was resolved.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

starseeker said:


> -saucer too thin
> -weapons pod simplified
> -roll bar too thin and missing recesses on front and back
> -outer rim on saucer bottom too narrow
> ...


Agree with everything above EXCEPT... the outer rim on the saucer bottom. While it is indeed molded thinner than the Enterprise rim, this *IS* actually accurate to the studio model, from what I could see from my screencaps.










If you look real close at the saucer rim you can see it's substantially thinner than Enterprise. So the kit is actually accurate there, however the slope of the hull toward the lower sensor array on the kit part is wrong to my eye, which is why I swapped the Reliant lower saucer for the Enterprise lower saucer. I like the way the thicker Enterprise rim looks so I left it on my build. I traded one inaccuracy for another! I checked out the length of the nacelles in proportion to the rest of the kit, and they seem OK to me, but maybe someone else has a more accurate measurement than just eyeballing it.


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

whiskeyrat, that's a great screencap! Thanks for posting it.

Mike.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

crowe-t said:


> whiskeyrat, that's a great screencap! Thanks for posting it.
> 
> Mike.


 Heck, one more just for fun. LOVE this ship!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Some Reliant reference photos here:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/user/jkirkphotos/library/Reliant References?sort=3&page=1
Probably newer better ones but perhaps some of these will be useful?
There's a decent one of the bottom rim here:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/user/jkirkphotos/media/Reliant References/CIMG1649.jpg.html?sort=3&o=52
If you're not familiar with PB, click on the magnifying glass on lower right once to do not much of anything, and then again to get a decent sized image, at least of this one.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

starseeker said:


> Some Reliant reference photos here:
> http://s1004.photobucket.com/user/jkirkphotos/library/Reliant References?sort=3&page=1
> Probably newer better ones but perhaps some of these will be useful?
> There's a decent one of the bottom rim here:
> ...


The underside shot is of the smaller model, I think... seems like the lower saucer rim is the same thickness on this one as Enterprise. So I guess either way you model it is correct? Nice find BTW!


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

It looks like the smaller model is made using the AMT 1/537 saucer and nacelles. The missing hatches on the saucer and the planetary sensor give it away.


----------



## sarah_bear_1701 (Mar 11, 2014)

Love the Reliant. Khan is my favorite Star Trek baddie. Ricardo Montalbán not Benedict Cumberbatch


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

crowe-t said:


> It looks like the smaller model is made using the AMT 1/537 saucer and nacelles. The missing hatches on the saucer and the planetary sensor give it away.


Ah! I believe you're right crowe-t! Hadn't noticed that... When was this particular model built, does anyone know?



sarah_bear_1701 said:


> Love the Reliant. Khan is my favorite Star Trek baddie. Ricardo Montalbán not Benedict Cumberbatch


Agreed on all counts! :thumbsup:

IMHO, Reliant is the single best re-configuration of the twin nacelles/saucer combo that was ever done. Even though I once read it described as "a U.F.O. with pontoons" lol!


----------

