Hobbyist Forums banner

1 - 20 of 877 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
This is an offshoot of an off-topic digression from the "TOS Galileo Shuttlecraft, the Bob Villa version" thread.

What size is the "real" Enterprise. What scale is the studio model?

Phil Broad posted the following in that thread. He was responding to previous posts. To understand this discussion in context you'd probably better read up on the previous thread.

X15-A2 said:
SNIP

The scale of the Enterprise miniature is not 1/84 or 1/85th, period. Rick [Sternbach] is mistaken if he believes that the studio art departments drew plans in odd scales like that, they don't. They draw plans in scales that they can measure with rulers, such as; 1/8, 1/12, 1/16, 1/32, 1/48, 1/96th, etc. If the model to be built is larger than they can comfortably draw on a given sheet of paper then it is drawn at a smaller scale and a note is placed on the face of the drawing such as "build twice size".

The obvious answer here is that the Enterprise is not 947 feet long. This is my belief; the Writers Guide plans have incorrect notations. The Enterprise is bigger, not a lot but somewhat (about 100 feet, more or less). Also, at 1/96th scale the dimension between the centerlines of the Warp Drive nacelles "hits" at 302 feet. This tells me that if the length does not hit but the centerlines do, then the Enterprise is not built to the proportions of the Writers Guide dimensions either, otherwise they would all "hit" or all "miss" but not a little of both. It is possible that the actual drawing or "cartoon" (engineers typically work according to dimensions only, the drawing is derisively called "the cartoon") is correct but the dimensions are off.

This opinion is based on my experience as a professional draftsmen and also the study of hundreds of sheets of studio blueprints in my collection. Of course this note won't change the minds of most people but those with my kind of experience will know what I'm saying is true.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course but I haven't heard any compelling reasons to change my position on this (yet, mind not nailed shut).

SNIP

Phil Broad
Model Builders Reference Vault
http://www.cloudster.com
As I stated earlier in the previous thread, you are quite correct about studios never blueprinting in anything but a rational scale. The ship was originally drafted to yield a 33.75" model (the "3-footer") in 1:192 (1/16" = 1'). These same plans were used to build a 4X model (the "11-footer) in 1:48 (1/4" = 1'). The bizarre 1:84.75 scale is the result of an after-the-fact size change that happened after the blueprints were drawn and probably after at least the small model was built.

That said, there are several reasons I believe that the Enterprise is, in the end, intended to be 947'. One of them is that the original artboard drawing that was made for the Writers' Guide/TMOST was drawn in a scale logically derived from 947' (1:1152 or 1"=96'). It doesn't work out to a reasonable scale from 1080'.

One of the points you raise is that the dimensions on the Jefferies 3-view don't match the drawing. This was my initial assesment, too, when I had only the TMOST reproduction to go on. However, upon examination of the scan of the original artboard, I find that they DO in fact match the drawing pretty well, given that they are such small drawings to begin with. What is more, they also match the model "as built" quite well, too. Where they differ is in the relative position of the components to each other. For example, each component is pretty much the same size and proportion as built; but on the model, the engines are mounted closer together since the pylons anchor lower on the engine rather than at the center line. The pylons also anchor in the Secondary hull lower than the centerline. These were apparently modifications made for ease of construction. Also, the dorsal pylon is much thicker on the model than on the drawing (for obvious reasons), and it holds the primary hull a little higher aloft.

It seems to me that, when the components are all the proper size at the stated dimension (947'), to look past this and focus on the fact that the engines happen to be the "right" distance apart if you enlarge it bigger than it is supposed to be is to miss the point. You end up with one dimension "right" and all the rest of the dimensions "wrong." There is simply no justification for doing this, especially when it is a detail that was obviously changed when the model was constructed.

I am attaching below a few images to illustrate how close the drawing is to the model as built. The Jefferies drawing is reproduced in blue and the Polar Lights drawing of the same component is overlaid in red to the exact same scale. I have it on good authority that the PL blueprints are extremely accurate except for a few minor (intentional) details. None of these details bear on this discussion.
I hope the above demonstrates at least why I have "left the fold" on the 1:96 scale. It is not that I don't think a case can be made for a larger ship. As you mentioned previously, you need all the space you can get to shoehorn in the shuttle bay! But I have been forced back to 947' (somewhat unwillingly, I admit) by these, and other facts.

BTW, I don't think I mentioned before how much I am impressed by the recent updates on your site. I absolutely love what you've done with the Hangar Deck! You seem to have a real knack for putting yourself in the design aesthetic of the original series. In reference to style, it is of a piece with the original art direction. And it is functional, to boot. Great work!

Mark Gagen
 

Attachments

·
Oxidation Genius
Joined
·
31,226 Posts
Honestly, it doesn't matter to me if the studio model was built to ANY scale or not. It really doesn't matter. As long as it looks good on screen, that's all that counts. The Making of Star Trek said 947 feet, and that's what I've been calling it since the damn book came out. That's good enough for me. All the figuring and rationalizing and measuring of deck height and speculation is pointless to me, since the first book on the subject I ever read said 947 feet. Dat's dat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Hi Mark,

You may be right with your aurguments here but I do like having that extra bit of space...

I'm glad you like my design efforts too. It is a fun challenge for a designer.

The "actual size" of the ship only really matters if one is interested in studying the relationship between the interior and the exterior. Of course for most model builders "true scale" issues go right to the heart of their hobby. Since many people are interested in further detailing the ship by working out deck plans and such, the "true size" then becomes primary. For me the search is to discover the true intent of the original designers and therefore learn a little more about the design.

But in the big scheme of things it is of no real importance.

Phil Broad
Model Builders Reference Vault
http://www.cloudster.com
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,837 Posts
X15-A2 said:
. . . But in the big scheme of things it is of no real importance.
Oh, come on! Don't rain on my parade! :jest:

Seriously, it is an interesting discussion. I enjoy hearing the arguments on scale especially in relation to the ST:TMP refit which I think ought to be rethought in order to make it more sensible.

The refit is very close to the original in proportions yet all the comparisons show the refit as being bigger as if the newer higher tech engines should be the same size as the old ones. If one matches the saucer diameters, the secondary hulls match in terms of max. diameter and the neck is pretty close. If I'm not mistaken, a study model was made using the AMT 18" for the phase II version which is essentially the ST:TMP version.

To make the refit bigger in the ST universe, it would have required adding a lot to the exterior of the secondary and primary hulls.

If they were the same size, it would have just been some reshaping here and there and replacement of modular units, mainly cutting back the secondary hull. This makes more sense and perhaps the 1/96th scaling would make the two ships match more closely. :confused:
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,837 Posts
heiki said:
Is it known if the big white rectangle on the outside front of the bridge is the view screen?
I think it was supposed to be for the second pilot despite what I think was intended from the very beginning to be a monitor and not a direct viewport.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
John P said:
Honestly, it doesn't matter to me if the studio model was built to ANY scale or not. It really doesn't matter. As long as it looks good on screen, that's all that counts. The Making of Star Trek said 947 feet, and that's what I've been calling it since the damn book came out. That's good enough for me. All the figuring and rationalizing and measuring of deck height and speculation is pointless to me, since the first book on the subject I ever read said 947 feet. Dat's dat.
I get where you are coming from John P, and to a large degree I agree with you.

However, you have to understand the genesis of the this thread to understand the importance of the size issue to X15-A2 and a few others. We were discussing the Galileo, which led to a discussion of the true size of the shuttlecraft bay.

X15-A2 has constructed an excellent 3D model of the TOS E, and has also worked on an excellent 3D model of the shutttlecraft bay.

Trying to get a believable, practical, workable shuttlecraft bay out of a 947 foot ship can be problematic, to say the least.

In examining some of the source materials for the original design, X15-A2 came across some descrepancies in the original plans that suggests that the plan drawings that led to a supposition that the ship was 947 feet long might have been in error. If that is so, it not only would make the original plans seem a little more logically scaled, but also provide X15-A2 with an accurate framework in which to place a workable shuttlecraft bay, as well as other details.

Again, for most modelers only concerned with building externally proportionately accurate models, you are right John P, that the real world length is less of an issue.

But for someone trying to construct an accurate, believable 3D model with accurate interior details such as the shuttlecraft bay it's of tremendous importance.

Perhaps it would help, X15-A2 if you would briefly restate and explain those original plan discrepancies(the exact plans you are referencing, their source, the nature and source of Sternbach's misreading that you refered to, etc) and how it's led you to suppose that the true length should have been originally stated as longer then 947 feet.


Also a couple of links to you TOS E 3-D model and shuttlebay model would probably help illustrate your points. Besides that they're impressive in and of themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
PerfesserCoffee said:
I enjoy hearing the arguments on scale especially in relation to the ST:TMP refit which I think ought to be rethought in order to make it more sensible.
I agree whole heartedly.

The refit is very close to the original in proportions yet all the comparisons show the refit as being bigger as if the newer higher tech engines should be the same size as the old ones. If one matches the saucer diameters, the secondary hulls match in terms of max. diameter and the neck is pretty close.
Actually, equalizing the saucer diameters won't get you where you want to go. What is needed is to scale it to the size of the drawings Matt Jefferies did for Phase II. When you compare the cross section he prepared for the refit you notice that the deck layouts match his cross section of the original ship in TMOST almost exactly. Even the turbo shafts seem to be the same. This has lead me to the following hypothesis about what was intended for the refit. This is still in it's formative stage and I am still assembling material to test it.

I believe the refit was intended to have been carried out by separating the various components and discarding the dorsal pylon, engine pylons and engines. The Primary hull was enlarged by adding an extra construction to extend it's edge. This corresponds to the flat ring on the underside which is similar to the old AMT model. The real E didn't have it -- the underside curved all the way to the edge. The refit picks up here and adds the extra flat ring, adding to the diameter of the hull. The curve leading up to this flat ring pretty well matches the profile of the original hull.

The upper section of the hull was stripped down to the top edge of the rim and a new upper curve and bridge were built on. This explains the new upper profile. Next the deflector array on the secondary hull was reworked, as well as the very back edge of the fantail.

The two hulls were joined together by a new Dorsal Pylon and the new engines (smaller, more powerful) were attached by the new pylons.

The interior of the Hangar Deck from the Phase II cross section looks just the same as the original Hangar, with the exception that it is a true plan with no converging details like the forced miniature set drawing in TMOST. In fact, it served as the guide for my own work on interpreting the original Hangar.

Mark Gagen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
Mark sent me this message in reply to a question I had:

Richard,

I am saying:

Ship was originally envisioned as 540 feet long.

Blueprints were drawn up to create a 1:192 model (33.75" long).

Later, the same blueprints were used to construct a 4X size 1:48 model (135" intended; 134" and change, actually)

At some point after blueprints were drawn (and maybe as late as after the large model was completed) the descision was taken to enlarge the ship. The ship was then rescaled to the current 947' length (1:84.1777 intended, 1:84.75 actually). The extra windows on the secondary hull and dorsal were added. The original station numbers remained from the 1:48 scale. The primary hull windows and bridge dome were not adjusted until series production.

An interesting side note: If the ship was intended to be 945' in length, the scale would have worked out to exactly 1:84.

Hope this helps,

Mark
It does help, thanks! That difference of 2 feet which would make the scale exactly 1:84 is interesting. I wonder if this could be explained somehow.

Is there some way that either through innaccurate measurements of the models (3 footer and 11 footer) as they existed, or the models not being built exactly as planned (11 footer slightly shorter), that this could have led them to make the mistake that 947' was in fact exactly 1:84?
 

·
Oxidation Genius
Joined
·
31,226 Posts
MGagen said:
The Primary hull was enlarged by adding an extra construction to extend it's edge.
That's my theory too. Specifically, I believe a corridor was added around the rim with crew mess areas where the windows are, and the new RCS thruster quads. This, to me, is the simplest explaination for the saucer being juuuuust a little wider.
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,837 Posts
MGagen said:
In fact, it served as the guide for my own work on interpreting the original Hangar.
I'd like to see you do some comparison diagrams showing your interpretation of the entire refit. Sounds interesting! :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Richard Compton said:
Is there some way that either through innaccurate measurements of the models (3 footer and 11 footer) as they existed, or the models not being built exactly as planned (11 footer slightly shorter), that this could have led them to make the mistake that 947' was in fact exactly 1:84?
I don't believe anyone at the time ever bothered to measure the models. They would have assumed that they were pretty much the size the blueprints called for. We know for certain what the blueprints called for. Richard Datin, who helped build the model, still has the blueprints and has gone on the record with the major dimensions. He states an overall length of 33-3/4". This is the magic number for comparisons with the "real" E's length. Unfortunately, there is no "neat" way to come up with 947' from it. All we are left with is the assumption that someone mistook a "5" for a "7" on a drawing somewhere and the error was never caught.

Of course, if someone has access to Mr. Datin, he could probably answer in a moment. The blues likely have a scale indicated on them. If the scale was changed before or during the construction of the big E model there would likely be some notation on them to that effect. Perhaps even the new rows of windows added in to boot.

I have tried to get in touch with him but have never been able to. Anyone know how to reach him? I'd love to put my findings in front of him...

Mark Gagen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
Is Mr. Datin in danger of dying? We recently lost Matt Jefferies and Wah Chang...

He still has the blueprints? Have these been reproduced anywhere? I wonder if he would allow them to be scanned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,596 Posts
This one statement may determine the proper direction that the bridge sits. With the turbo life directly (180 degrees) behind the viewscreen!

Quote:
Originally Posted by heiki
Is it known if the big white rectangle on the outside front of the bridge is the view screen?​

PerfesserCoffee said:
I think it was supposed to be for the second pilot despite what I think was intended from the very beginning to be a monitor and not a direct viewport.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,596 Posts
This one statement may determine the proper direction that the bridge sits. With the turbo lift directly (180 degrees) behind the viewscreen!

Quote:
Originally Posted by heiki
Is it known if the big white rectangle on the outside front of the bridge is the view screen?​

PerfesserCoffee said:
I think it was supposed to be for the second pilot despite what I think was intended from the very beginning to be a monitor and not a direct viewport.
 

·
Oxidation Genius
Joined
·
31,226 Posts
Trek Ace said:
It is, as based on the stated length of 947'. Which makes the model 11.364" in 1/1000th scale.
Unless you don't push those nacelle end caps on hard enough, then it's longer :D.
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,837 Posts
heiki said:
This one statement may determine the proper direction that the bridge sits. With the turbo lift directly (180 degrees) behind the viewscreen!

Quote:
Originally Posted by heiki
Is it known if the big white rectangle on the outside front of the bridge is the view screen?​

That's what I've always figured. Surely that exterior 'post' is part of the turbolift shaft system but perhaps the turbolift moves over just a little since it is capable of both horizontal and vertical movement.

The screen window from the 2nd pilot version is very obviously meant to represent the main viewscreen.
 
1 - 20 of 877 Posts
Top