# AMT/Ertl 1/1000 Excelsior Inaccuracies



## Dr. Gonzo (Oct 3, 2000)

The recent releases of the TOS Enterprise and the Refit by R2/Polar Lights in 1/1000 seem to have rekindled an interest in this older kit by AMT/Ertl. I've seen a lot of threads recently asking for build up tips, etc and thought I'd share some of my research into making the kit better. As is, the kit builds up pretty nicely with the exception of a few areas. And, at a glance, it certainly _looks_ like the Excelsior but upon closer inspection there are a lot of areas that can be improved. 

I highly recommend the resin correction parts available from Don's Light and Magic and the Saucer/neck Correction kit from the Starship Modeler Store. Both of these sets will greatly add to the accuracy of your model with little to no effort.

I'll be using the large studio model built for TSFS and the Enterprise-B as reference. 

For the NCC-2000 Starting from Deck A:
The bridge is the wrong size and shape. The studio model's bridge is much thinner and more streamlined. Also, the ridge/wall around the bridge is too tall. Needs to be sanded down. The saucer correction kit at SSM includes a new bridge and platform that more closely resembles the studio model.


Impulse Engines: From the rear, there is a slight taper downwards on the studio model engines. 



There is also a mold problem here. Looking at the kit from this direction you'll notice the right side of both the port and starboard engines is too thick. These will need to be sanded down to match the left sides.

Upper primary Hull: 
-The radial grid lines are too close together, resulting in the port and starboard phaser banks and the RCS thrusters to be incorrectly placed. The kits gridlines lay in such a way that the port and starboard PB sit on grids perpendicular to the center line of the ship. They should be aft a few degrees. A complete reworking of the radial lines starting from the center line would be needed. I have not worked out the exact difference yet though.



-RCS thrusters should be flush to the hull. The kit has indents. Fill these with strip styrene and putty and sand smooth.

-Phaser banks are raised rectangles. These need to be sanded flush with the hull. 

Lower primary Hull: 
-If you're going for accuracy here and you're not a master scratchbuilder, my suggestion is to throw this away and get the correction kit at SSM. The entire piece is wrong. 

Neck: 
-The actual neck structure on the studio model is actually pretty small. It's the fins that make it seem bigger.


----------



## Dr. Gonzo (Oct 3, 2000)

-The back of the neck should also be curved outward. The kit's part is a flat piece:



-The inserts in the neck are also lacking in detail and accuracy.
Compare the kit's neck to that of the replacement part in the Saucer/neck correction kit and the inserts form DLM:


Secondary Hull Top:
-On the kit, the top deck is a flat piece with 8 squares scribed into it. The section of squares should be raised.



-The foremost area of the "now" raised platform should also be curved, inward, to match the outward curvature of the neck:


----------



## Dr. Gonzo (Oct 3, 2000)

Warp Engine Pylons:
-The hump the pylons attach to is too far forward. The pylons should be centered on this hump. Snagging a pylon assembly from a E-B kit will solve this.


-The hump is too short. There needs to be a bit more material underneath the pylons before the hump connects with the ribbed detail it sits on:


-Intake grills are reversed. There should be three in front and one short in back ala the Refit.



-Lastly, and this area I'm not sure about. In almost every picture I've seen the connecting points of the pylons to the hump rest a bit higher than the pylons themselves. Ertl replicated this on the kit. The more I look at pics though the more I'm convinced the pylons are supposed to sit flush and they've either buckled under the weight of the nacelles or the hump cover, to get into the electronics, isn't attached fully and is resting too high. Again, I'm not sure which is accurate.
As you can see in this pic the red pinstriping doesn't line up:



Warp Engines:
-Rear horizontal fin needs to be extended further from the rear of the nacelle.


and to be super accurate, a scribed line needs to be made around the rear top of the nacelle directly before the registry numbers:


----------



## Dr. Gonzo (Oct 3, 2000)

Secondary Hull coming soon


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Uh, just so you know this topic has already been covered a couple of years ago.
And what are you reffering to as fins for the neck? The bulges on the side of the secondary hull? First time I ever knew them to be reffered to as 'fins'.


----------



## Dr. Gonzo (Oct 3, 2000)

irishtrek said:


> Uh, just so you know this topic has already been covered a couple of years ago.
> And what are you reffering to as fins for the neck? The bulges on the side of the secondary hull? First time I ever knew them to be reffered to as 'fins'.


Edit: Nevermind


----------



## JediPuju (Oct 12, 2009)

I think he means the way the neck goes thus:

------------------------- <- fin
-------------
------------------------- <- fin
--------------
------------------------- <- fin

keep it comin' Doctor!


----------



## MartinHatfield (Apr 11, 2004)

I always imagined them to represent something akin to the air-cooling fins on a lawnmower, or the heat dissapators on top of a processor in a computer.


----------



## JediPuju (Oct 12, 2009)

yes! perhaps as some kind of mammoth radiator for all that power required for the transwarp drives


----------



## idMonster (Jun 18, 2003)

I've always had a hard time accepting that the AMT/Ertl Excelsior/Ent B kit is 1/1000th scale.

I'm sure that there is a canon length for them and someone did the math and came up with that figure for the scale but look at the size of the bridge on the model and compare it to the size of the bridge on the 1k scale TOS & Refit E's. Unless the bridge is recessed into the B/C deck and the ovoid on top is only the roof of it I don't see how they could cram all of the stuff in there that we've seen in the movies. It would have to be crewed by munchkins.

I think that the person(s) who came up with the canon length may have got it wrong.

Just my .02 bars of latinum.

Gordon


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

idMonster said:


> I've always had a hard time accepting that the AMT/Ertl Excelsior/Ent B kit is 1/1000th scale.
> 
> I'm sure that there is a canon length for them and someone did the math and came up with that figure for the scale but look at the size of the bridge on the model and compare it to the size of the bridge on the 1k scale TOS & Refit E's.
> 
> Gordon


If you've got an unbuilt PL 1000 refit then compare the bridge for the refit to the bridge on the Excelsior kit and you can see they are the same size. In fact use a ruler as well because the diameter for both bridges is 3/8 of an inch, I'm talking about the walls and not the floor extention on the bridges.
Also TOS PL Es birdge is about a half inch diameter and the most likely reason for the other 2 having a smaller diameter is the elmination of a crawl space on the bridge design for the refit and Excelsior class ships.


----------



## holt32 (Nov 5, 2009)

Yes but the bridge on the amt excelsior model is to round/big and the bridge on the round 2 1/1000 refit is to small. The truth is it's just a mistake on the part of the model makers at ILM.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Oh boy, not this argument again. I find it a bit arrogant to think that we somehow know better than those who designed and created the Excelsior what their intentions were. I'd much rather hear from Nilo Rodis whether he decided he thought it was a mistake to make the ship 1531 feet in length, or the bridge "too small". It may be that the issue is moot: what is canon is canon and we may never hear from the model makers who fashioned these ships we seem bound and determined to argue about.

BTW, the neck shown in an earlier photo with DLM photon parts, where did that one come from?


----------



## JediPuju (Oct 12, 2009)

I wouldnt call it arrogance - when the production staff on a movie build these things I would assume they dont think too much about that sort of stuff, they just need to get the models built and get the shots done well enough so that it looks good on screen. 
Its the likes of us the fans who do care about these "metrics" more so, as I assume also that we like to have our display pieces in scale - so we like to hotly debate - its all good clean fun!


----------



## Dr. Gonzo (Oct 3, 2000)

charonjr said:


> BTW, the neck shown in an earlier photo with DLM photon parts, where did that one come from?


The neck is part of the correction kit over at starship modeler store. The kit includes a lower saucer, neck piece and a new more accurate bridge. It is currently out of stock but there are rumblings they will be available again in the next few weeks.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

holt32 said:


> Yes but the bridge on the amt excelsior model is to round/big and the bridge on the round 2 1/1000 refit is to small. The truth is it's just a mistake on the part of the model makers at ILM.


Wha exactly do you mean by "to big/round" and "to small"?
Please explain.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Thanks! I found it the parts at SSM. And I await for their availability. Someone mentioned a revised secondary hull for the AMT Excelsior? Is the shape THAT far off? I was wondering, as I have a blow up the ST3 shot of Excelsior in the docking bay after Enterprise enters, and I'd wondered how the apparently bulgingly vertical front of the 2nd hull curves so quickly to the angle seen from the side. I can't duplicate that view with the kit held to the same angle as the photo.

I apologize about the arrogance remark. I do know that the model makers are doing their level best to get things to look right on film, and I plead guilty to wanting things to be exacting. It's just that from time to time, I've read people pronouncing judgment that these designers and artists made mistakes. I'm uncomfortable with people sounding as though they had the authority to make such a judgment and, by implication, that they wouldn't have made such mistakes under the same time pressures. 

I'm certain everyone would love a super-Excelsior, much larger than 1531 feet. It does make the mind boggle at modeling a kit the would be, what?, 53 inches or so long in 1:350 scale. It would be fun.:tongue:


----------



## Dr. Gonzo (Oct 3, 2000)

charonjr said:


> Thanks! I found it the parts at SSM. And I await for their availability. Someone mentioned a revised secondary hull for the AMT Excelsior? Is the shape THAT far off? I was wondering, as I have a blow up the ST3 shot of Excelsior in the docking bay after Enterprise enters, and I'd wondered how the apparently bulgingly vertical front of the 2nd hull curves so quickly to the angle seen from the side. I can't duplicate that view with the kit held to the same angle as the photo.


Glad you found the parts. You'll be very happy with them I think. As for the secondary hull, sorry I haven't finished this thread up yet. I've stopped in from time to time but really haven't had a lot of time to post with pictures etc.

I'm going to try to get to some of it tonight, and I will be addressing the bulginess of the secondary hull and can give you a few ideas I've had and some I've seen other modelers attempt.


----------



## holt32 (Nov 5, 2009)

I'll try to explain the best I can and lets not turn this into an argument guys. Dr gonzo has already explained what I mean about the excelsior bridge on his first post the shape is wrong on the amt excelsior it should be more oval in shape on the amt kit it's round. As for the new round 2 1/1000 refit the bridge shape above the spot lights is to thin it should bubble out more.


----------



## ajmadison (Oct 18, 1999)

Frankly, the discussion about the Excelsior and its features has long been controversial, but getting upset about any one, far as I'm concerned, innocent, remark, is pointless. Its bad enough that the producers of the movies/TV don't bother to have the interior set designers have a quick meeting with the FX crew to make sure the outside isn't smaller than the inside, but it gets worse when the TPTB arbitrarily set overall dimensions that makes correlating all of the FX shots with interior scenes even worse. Making sense of the Excelsior bridge set with the FX miniature without some sort of disclaimer on dimensions is impossible.

As for comparing the Excelsior kit with the R2 1/1000 refit is not going to help. The R2 bridge is undersized. In fact, something is wrong from the base of the B/C decks on up, at least compared to the reference material I have.

And now I expect someone to accuse me of making an overall statement of the quality of the R2 refit kit, which I have not.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Pidg said:


> How about something constructive, instead of a snobish put down...That's why I pretty much gave up here.
> stopped by to see if things had improved
> 
> 
> Goodbye again


'Snobish put down"? You missunderstood me, I was just curious and I apoligize for not saying so.


----------



## holt32 (Nov 5, 2009)

Don't worry about it Irishtrek it didn't come of off as a put down to me it seemed to me that you were asking me to explain better so I didn't take that way.


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

same here. You said please.

It's alright laddie. He's not the friendliest sort either as evidenced by his commenting on my technique for painting the clear nacelle inserts would leave thumbprints indicates.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I aint worried about it guys.
As for Holt's comment on the shape and size of the bridge housing for the AMT Execlsior kit compared to the filming model I just gotta say picky, picky, picky.:tongue: After all this kit is a decent repesntation of the filming model with details that can be corrected, depending on how picky a builder wants to be.


----------



## holt32 (Nov 5, 2009)

Well I am the guy that added the little blue line above the windows at the front of the starboard side of the secondary hull just under the strongback on my 1/1000 E-A: I guess I am a picky SOB. :thumbsup:


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

OMG! There are picky SOBs on this forum! Ahhhh!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

charonjr said:


> OMG! There are picky SOBs on this forum! Ahhhh!


You gonna panic or something???


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

holt32 said:


> Well I am the guy that added the little blue line above the windows at the front of the starboard side of the secondary hull just under the strongback on my 1/1000 E-A: I guess I am a picky SOB. :thumbsup:


Wait, which line is that? You've been helping with my 1/1000 A build--this detail is news to me!


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

(Peeking up over a distant hill) Uh, I'll try not to my Irishtrek..... (shivers)


----------



## holt32 (Nov 5, 2009)

When they redid the ship for star trek 4 they put a thin blue line above the three windows at the front of the secondary hull on the starboard side just below the strongback since thay painted the shield grid I think most people belive that it's part of it but it's not scribed into the hull. at 1/1000 scale you would not be able to see it but I was trying to make my to as differant as I could here's a picture look between the three window and the strongback.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Ah! Thanks!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

charonjr said:


> (Peeking up over a distant hill) Uh, I'll try not to my Irishtrek..... (shivers)


Now, now, don't panic. Instead take a deep breath and let it out slowly. Fell better? Good, now do it again and you will feel even better and much more calm.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

OHmmmmmmmmm! (looks about, eyes widening, tentative smile flickering on the corners of the lips....)


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Pidg said:


> Irish, Mage. I sincerely apologize. Letting personal life stress come in here, which is suposed to be for fun. Lost my job 6 months ago, and no luck yet. Starting to feel the strain.


Who the bleep is Mage??? And beside we ar trying to have fun around here, are you?:tongue:


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I know the feeling about job loss: it's been a year and a half for me. If it weren't for my SSDI, I'd be up a creek....


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I'm going to look back at the pictures of the Excelsior and see if there's any way to accurately determine the lines of the secondary hull, especially around the bow: just does see right to me.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Try conentrating on the forward torpedo tube in the most side view of the Excelsior you can find and the lines right next to it should give you a good idea of where they need to be, also a side/top view showing the lines across the top of the secondary hull and where the forward line meets a line on the side of the hull. The location of the rest of the lines I have not been able to determen just yet. Hope that helps!


----------



## eagledocf15 (Nov 4, 2008)

*Thank you for starting this conversation.*

I love the input and help with kit accuracies


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Working on it....


----------



## JediPuju (Oct 12, 2009)

maybe OT , but anyone else think that the excelsior looks very gray on screen in ST:III?
Im thinking when I get round to making mine I might want to replicate that 'on screen' look colour wise. finished in white they just dont look like the excelsior to me. Could be the spacedock blue hues mucking about with my eyes ...


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I used to be a projectionist and we once got a hold of a badly scratched print of ST:6. Given the condition I took a frame of the Enterprise-A and Excelsior in that last sunset shot. Excelsior was definitely done up in blues to accentuate the difference between it and Enterprise (like it needed it?). There are plenty of online pictures of Excelsior before she was modified and repainted to be the Enterprise-B.


----------



## JediPuju (Oct 12, 2009)

Cheers charon!

I got the blu ray of STIII and the shots with the excelsior are utterly gorgeous. If anyone can take bluray stills those would be great references!


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/index.php?cat=56


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Cheers to you, also, masterful JediPuju!  From where do you hail? I'm in Tucson.


----------



## JediPuju (Oct 12, 2009)

across the pond matey - london england! Nice to meet ya!

Gregatron - thanks for answering my distress call  Defo looks nice n' bluish grey to me - then again so does the enterprise in those shots .... still , Its how its always pictured in my mind ...


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Love to be in London right now.... It's 101 here, 105 on Saturday. I believe that's 38-40c for you....  Just off the top of my head.

Enjoying renting the original The Avengers with Patrick MacNee and Linda Thorson ('68), already absorbed the Emma Peel episodes. Just wonderful.


----------



## JediPuju (Oct 12, 2009)

Its been on / off rain here! not much summer going round ....
Never really watched avengers tbh caught a few reruns now and then but I like wikipedia's take on emma peel:

"combined with superior fighting skills, intelligence, and a contemporary fashion sense"

good girl!


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

That's why I liked her (Diana Rigg as Mrs. Emma Peel) so much!


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Trade you heat for rain....


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Saw on R2s web site yesterday that the E-B will be reissued some time this year and it looks as if the decals will include window, unless of course they just added them to the molds.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Windows would be great! I don't think they'll add them into the plastic: too much cost to retool and make it work without the AMT Reliant window effect. I wouldn't mind if the made an accurate lower saucer half and neck, but again cost.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Well there is a thread on the excelsior over on SSM and PhantonStranger yesterday posted a question as to what us builders would like to see done to the E-B in the way of improvments and several of us have p[osted responses but PS has yet to make another post on the thread. But I' sure he will in time.


----------



## jgoldader (Mar 26, 2008)

I was holding out hope for an accurate 1/1000 Excelsior from Art Asylum, but a cryptic answer to a question on the company's blog has dampened my hopes.

http://www.artasylum.com/blog/2010/02/ask-dst-74/

Relevant part:
Jeff Weber
Hello, I was wondering when will the USS Enterprise ncc-1701-b and the USS Excelsior NX-2000 be released will it be early mid or late 2010. Thank you.
DSTChuck: We have no plans to actively solicit or advertise any ships or role-play items until the factory is ready to being actual production.


That's a serious bummer. The prototype, which was displayed at a show last year when the AA Excelsior @ E-B were announced, was very nice.

Jeff

Jeff


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

Bumping for further discussion on the secondary hull - aside from the shape of the navigational deflector trench, what else is broken here on the AMT kit?


----------



## ajmadison (Oct 18, 1999)

Top & side profiles of the secondary hull are wrong. Fortunately, they can be fixed by adding to the existing shapes instead of requiring a full rework. In short, the secondary hull is more "almond" shaped and does not have parallel sides like the kit, and the "keel" is deeper.

There is something wrong with the warp nacelle pylons, but the exact details escape me. I believe they're not positioned fore-aft correctly, and the distance between the pylons and the top of secondary hull is also wrong.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

ajmadison said:


> Top & side profiles of the secondary hull are wrong. Fortunately, they can be fixed by adding to the existing shapes instead of requiring a full rework. In short, the secondary hull is more "almond" shaped and does not have parallel sides like the kit, and the "keel" is deeper.
> 
> There is something wrong with the warp nacelle pylons, but the exact details escape me. I believe they're not positioned fore-aft correctly, and the distance between the pylons and the top of secondary hull is also wrong.


Thank you, I just ran into another thread on RPF that has a great discussion on how to correct the secondary hull:
http://www.therpf.com/f11/accurizing-building-amt-ertl-excelsior-77494/

The nacelles on the AMT kit appear to be too long, by maybe as much as 0.25". I first noticed this in comparison to those on the Tsukuda Excelsior kit, and am now in the process of evaluating their overall length against the studio pics that are out there. I believe you're right about the positioning, too. I'll have to check that out.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Maybe these will help? I posted my Excelsior drawings here:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/My Excelsior Drawings/
The drawings were based on screen grabs and photos of the movie miniature (not the Greg Jein miniature). If anyone can spot any errors or point out corrections or omissions, I'd love to hear about them. Currently not modeling but lurking occasionally. Will get back here one of these months.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Starseeker, I've seen the ST films with the Excelsior in them and paused the images showing her port side and it looks to me like you have too many grid lines for the port side.
and if any one's interested in printing out starseekers drawing to the same scale ae the AMT kit you need to reduce the size of the image by roughly 60%


----------



## Dr. Gonzo (Oct 3, 2000)

BlackbirdCD said:


> Thank you, I just ran into another thread on RPF that has a great discussion on how to correct the secondary hull:
> http://www.therpf.com/f11/accurizing-building-amt-ertl-excelsior-77494/
> 
> The nacelles on the AMT kit appear to be too long, by maybe as much as 0.25". I first noticed this in comparison to those on the Tsukuda Excelsior kit, and am now in the process of evaluating their overall length against the studio pics that are out there. I believe you're right about the positioning, too. I'll have to check that out.


Yeah that's my thread. I've been just as bad at updating it as I have updating this thread. I did throw an update on there today though as well as here:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?p=3410404#post3410404

Progress has been slower than I would like but it is coming along.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Irishtrek: those aren't grid lines. It's been a while, but I think I was just trying to line up possible decks based on the windows in that port side drawing. Offhand I can't recall seeing any pictures of the port side, not of the NX anyway. Greg Jein's is well documented but neither the stbd side, nor the saucer, nor anything else, quite matches the ILM miniature so I'm not using it as a reference. (One way of telling if you're looking at a picture of Greg Jein's miniature: if the picture is clear, 95/100 it's Jein's. Sigh.) There are a few good shots of the ILM miniature after it had been modified into the Lakota but who knows if the port side grid lines above the transplant are original or not? If they are, they don't quite match the stbd side. So far it's been impossible for me to nail down clear views of both sides of the miniature as it appeared at the same time. I'm just going by the completely baseless assumption that they were symmetrical. ??


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

Okay, I shot some pics of my progress, which required me to lightly tack the pieces together with CA. The major components are only loosely in alignment, so don't give me any grief  This is my take on accurizing the Excelsior, which differs a bit from what we've seen in this thread.

1.) The Secondary Hull isn't too shallow, it's actually too long. This throws off the entire shape of the model, and likely impacts the overall effect on the Enterprise-B. It's too short by 5/8" . It still needs to have a correcting slab of material between the top deck, and the bottom hull - the missing "step" that corrects the overall height.

2.) The nacelles are too far back - this is corrected if you hack out 3/8" of the top and bottom of the secondary hull

3.) The nacelle pylon "hump" (what hump?), in the middle is still too long, but that's been discussed previously.

4.) The impulse deck is too long, off the back of the primary hull. Bring it in by at least 6-8mm (going to metric now... sorry).

The above changes do two things - they make the secondary hull shorter, thereby making it appear to be more "fat". More importantly, the net effect is to make the saucer larger in proportion - a significant mistake in the kit in the first place. I don't have my assembled yet to demonstrate, but will be sending along pics later on.

The rest of the corrections have been discussed elsewhere: primary hull edge needs to be flattened, the underside of the primary hull & neck area are off, scribing radial grids, etc. etc.

Secondary Hull parts before cutting - I've already added the step between these pieces, the missing filler:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackbirdcd/4841668239/in/set-72157624487259655/

And after cutting / Reassembly:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackbirdcd/4842285448/in/set-72157624487259655/

The final result compared to my old, not at all screen accurate but finished AMT/ERTL buildup:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackbirdcd/4842285832/in/set-72157624487259655/

Compared to a great top view of the original studio miniature in its NX-2000 configuration:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackbirdcd/4842285984/in/set-72157624487259655/

And in a comparison SPFX shot - you simply don't get the proportions matching this way with the standard build up. Granted my angles are off, and the model shot is a bit out of focus...:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackbirdcd/4842286150/in/set-72157624487259655/

Giving credit where credit is due - Dr. Gonzo got me inspired to take a crack at this and while he's going at it a bit differently (to correct the secondary hull), I'm certain his will turn out great. Also, I made heavy use of "Starseeker's" drawings (posted here), which I've also compared to as many shots of the studio models as I have been able to gather. These drawings are close enough for my needs, and I've printed them up to scale as I build along - an extremely helpful thing to do:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/My Excelsior Drawings/


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I'd be interested in your secondary hull final mods drawings when you're done.


----------



## Dr. Gonzo (Oct 3, 2000)

charonjr said:


> I used to be a projectionist and we once got a hold of a badly scratched print of ST:6. Given the condition I took a frame of the Enterprise-A and Excelsior in that last sunset shot. Excelsior was definitely done up in blues to accentuate the difference between it and Enterprise (like it needed it?). There are plenty of online pictures of Excelsior before she was modified and repainted to be the Enterprise-B.





BlackbirdCD said:


> Compared to a great top view of the original studio miniature in its NX-2000 configuration:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackbirdcd/4842285984/in/set-72157624487259655/


Is there some Excelsior reference site that I'm missing out on here? That's two pics of the studio model that I've never seen before.

Blackbird, you have a PM incoming.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

I completely forgot about this site, from Japan:

http://starshipclass.net/modules/archives/index.php?content_id=1

Basically it's another collection of known images. That top view is one that came from a semi-rare trading card series that was released with Star Trek III. I never got a great scan of it myself, but I recognize the shot. 

Of course that means the original is out there in someone's dusty collection


----------



## ajmadison (Oct 18, 1999)

BlackbirdCD said:


> Okay, I shot some pics of my progress, which required me to lightly tack the pieces together with CA. The major components are only loosely in alignment, so don't give me any grief  This is my take on accurizing the Excelsior, which differs a bit from what we've seen in this thread.


Appreciate your input. I've not had a chance to place the kit parts against the various plans/blueprints/schematics to fully understand what is wrong and where. Knowing how AMT/Ertl just fakes it sometimes, rather than trying to fully replicate the correct shape, can produce a cascade of problems. Finding the biggest problem usually explains all the other profile/distance/shape issues. Since I like getting out the razor saw more than applying putty, I like your solutions better. *smile*.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

ajmadison said:


> ....Since I like getting out the razor saw more than applying putty, I like your solutions better. *smile*.


Oh me too. I loath filler putty and will do whatever I can to eliminate the need for it at all. So far I've used just a tiny bit on some dings on the saucer - everything else has been modified and filled with styrene strip, welded with a liberal dose of Ambroid Proweld.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Hadn't noticed until you pointed out that the tops of the Impulse vents were slanted: the outer sides of the entire Impulse Deck block are also slanted! The Ertl kit has everything straight vertical and horizontal.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

charonjr said:


> Hadn't noticed until you pointed out that the tops of the Impulse vents were slanted: the outer sides of the entire Impulse Deck block are also slanted! The Ertl kit has everything straight vertical and horizontal.


Yep, I just corrected mine. Not too hard, just a few cuts and a re-glue. It makes it look better from several angles.


----------

