Hobbyist Forums banner

101 - 120 of 877 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #101
uss_griffin said:
I know this has been covered in other threads before, but I can't remember the result. In the MOST overlay of 1701 w/ CVN65, does the scale confirm or at least support the 947' number or does it raise additional questions?
It has been a while since I looked at this, but I did check it. One difficulty is getting an accurate LOA figure for the Big E circa 1965. The decks change from refit to refit on a nuclear carrier. I did find a figure, though and I seem to recall it the starship came up a little smaller than 947'. The ruler on the drawing didn't seem to match either way. I believe that the image was a 'quickie' intended to convey the rough size.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
Might be interesting to guess where in the 1960's you'd quickly find schematics of the carrier.

By the way, I don't want to hijack the thread but I didn't want to start a new one either. What about the refit? Jefferies originally drew the refit, so was that ever toyed around with? Does it have a hard number and what about the minature, does it have a set scale?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,780 Posts
Mark,

I believe at the time of the Jefferies size comparison, that the Enterprise carrier was 1,123 feet long (it is a little longer, now, since the refit in 1979).

Richard,

There was no trick with coming up with specs in the 60's. You could find them in any number of publications of the time - books, magazines, Jayne's, etc. Yes, we did have resources back then before the internet and the World Wide Web. :)

BTW, the refit model from TMP was built to a scale of 1/10"=1' (1"=10', or 1/120 scale), making the model exactly 100" long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
Well, yeah. But what did they use? I'm just saying, it was probably more limited as it's mostly a reference book of some sort as it'd be unlikely they'd want a schematic of a carrier and find a magazine article with it, they'd probably go and look for it in a reference book. I dunno, it's a stupid question. What kind of pencils did they use?! :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,780 Posts
I have several magazines from 1962 with the Enterprise photos, plans and articles (she was launched that year). National Geographic, Naval Air Power, Popular Mechanics, etc., and many others, all had extensive coverage of the Navy's latest and greatest. Jayne's Fighting Ships is a standard for info on all naval vessels. Matt probably had all of that available in his own references within easy reach.

BTW, he didn't use pencil for that plan, rather it is an ink drawing on a 10"x15" art board, with rub-on shading from Letraset for the carrier. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #107
Trek Ace said:
BTW, he didn't use pencil for that plan, rather it is an ink drawing on a 10"x15" art board, with rub-on shading from Letraset for the carrier. :D
<OLD MAN VOICE> Back in my day, we used a brand called Zip-A-Tone to shade our drawings. And there was none of this "hop in the car and drive to the art supply store" -- we walked, on things called "feet"!<\OLD MAN VOICE>

I feel much better now! :jest:

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #108
Richard Compton said:
By the way, I don't want to hijack the thread but I didn't want to start a new one either. What about the refit? Jefferies originally drew the refit, so was that ever toyed around with? Does it have a hard number and what about the minature, does it have a set scale?
Jefferies was apparently not involved any longer by the time the TMP Refit was finalized. The scale of that model changed from the time he designed it. I can't speak to exactly how long that model is, or, given it's "canonical" size, what scale it is. I can say that Jefferies created the design configuration with the intention of it being a little smaller than it is now. Everyone complains that the refit "can't really be the same ship because the sizes and proportions are all wrong." A close look at the cross section of his Phase II drawing shows that it really was meant to be. The inconsistancy is a product of the irresistable urge to "make the ship bigger" that has infected every incarnation of Trek except "Enterprise." (That series merely settled for making it too cool instead.)

Mark
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
504 Posts
Well, the one inch equalling ten feet number came from Richard Taylor, who was in charge at Abel (over Probert) of redesigning the E AFTER it had jumped from Phase II to TMP feature movie status.

So THAT matter of scale doesn't owe to MJ, unless he had locked it at 1000 ft during Phase II (and nothing I've seen indicates that.)

Taylor also sez in the online interview that the Phase II model was something like four feet, but other sources I recall (perhaps even earlier remarks from Taylor, or from Magicam in American Cinematographer) put the discarded/incomplete Phase II E at something JUST missing Taylor's desired scale, which would have it at something in the six foot range, and that reconciles with most pics I've seen.

But a lot of Taylor's interview comments are suspect: he mentions intending to employ Illusion Arts for matte paintings, even though they didn't form until the mid 80s (prior to that time, the two guys who later made up the core of Illusion Arts worked under Al Whitlock, pretty much exclusively at Universal.)

I've thought that the Abel organization pushing for a new miniature E was a way of establishing their pull early on, commmiting the production to following their dictates. I mean, a snorkel lens on a six footer is going to produce similar looks as a snorkel on an 8 footer ... in order to get fantastic scale effects on a mostly undetailed surface (since the E wasn't ever going to look like a star destroyer in terms of junk parts) you'd have had to build it huge to get REAL HEAVY DUTY scale on the E model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
MGagen said:
Hi, Chuck.

Actually, I understood you to mean that the people who were "making it up" were the ones who were to blame for most inconsistancies.



I was disagreeing with this, saying, in essence, that the person who was "making up" the configuration of the Enterprise (Jefferies) WASN'T to blame for the inconsistancies. Most inconsistancies stem from the original, well thought-out design being changed or set aside at the last minute for production reasons. For example, "let's reshuffle how the bridge is layed out so the turbo door is over the Captain's shoulder for a better camera angle."

Perhaps this is indeed what you meant. If so, we are in agreement.

Mark
Yep. That's who I was talking about... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,780 Posts
Sometimes I miss those old days of having to actually draw everything out and use rub-on graphics and burnishers. Computers almost take all of the fun out of it. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
I almost hesitate to say this, given MGagen's (understandably) strong feelings on the subject, but...

Tonight, I completed my "layup" of the Matt Jeffries hangar deck and cutaway drawings. Which is to say, I enlarged the former until the shuttle became the size of the old pewter-like Galoob Galileo...then enlarged the cutaway such that the hangar bay fit (lengthwise) the indicated area.

The way I figure it, even given the hangar set's being built in forced-perspective, the maximum overall length is still from the ship's boattail to the back of the warp pylons...and as for the hangar/shuttle proportions, "removal" of forced perspective from the plans (which do of course reflect it, per the decreasing-toward-the-rear height of the wall "cabins," as well as the hangar's tail being shorter than the layup height would have it) would only make the hangar bigger -- i.e., longer -- right, Mark?

Thus, this method gives a minimum size to the ship overall [save one forsake the look of the hangar for that fittable into a 947-ft ship...results seen on the Model Builder's Reference Vault CGI shots...which (in the case of the hangar) are gorgeous, but NOT what's seen on screen.

Result: she's some 1284 feet long (and the bridge fits into her in a "Cage"-esque fashion).

Implications in terms of existing models:

ERTL's 22-inch cutaway Enterprise is a hair from 1/700 (standard model ship scale).

ERTL's refit model -- if enlarged proportionally, i.e., considered to be as much larger percentage-wise than the original as it calculates to be in "canon" figures -- is to the same scale [and although this enlargement does some damage to deck spacing and of course travel pod hatch diameters, it can be rationalized with Probert's hangar deck painting IF one assumes the 2 visible shuttlecabins are "long range" (like the Surak's), not the smaller "mediums" posited by Probert].

Polar Light's lil ol 11.36-incher becomes 1/1356 scale -- pretty much what ERTL's larger Enterprise-D was, and since a "standard" garage kit scale (at 1/1400, 1284 ft would come to 11.01 in -- close enough for rock n' roll if you ask me).

Heresy? Yeah -- but it's a fun, consistent heresy.

David Winfrey
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,935 Posts
StarCruiser said:
Outside - easy - same exact size/shape as a 1940/1950 London police call box (which is actually what it is). Inside - ANYTHING GOES!!!!
The same scaling system used for the Jupiter 2. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Damnit. This AM's heretical figures were miscalculated, being based on my using length of ship without nacelles as reference.

Here's the relationships and how I derived 'em, and my results (correct this time...I think):

Length "eleven-foot" miniature -- 134 inches
(cited from the ST Poster book on Phil's site, and there questioned...but looking at his own comparisons of the Jeffries' cutaway and the recent restoration measurements by one Kerr, 134 agrees with length derivations based on primary diameter, secondary length and nacelle length, so let's go with: 134 inches

Secondary (without dish) length -- .3663 of full (i.e. the ship is 2.773 times its secondary's length)

Hangar vs. secondary -- 1/4 -- secondary is 4 times the minimum hangar length

So: if she's 947, the hangar's 83.25 ft. -- about what Jeffries' cutaway says it is, but WAY to small to contain a 29 ft. shuttle in the way it does onscreen.

If one enlarges the hangar (I'm taking calculations from Jeffries cutaway of same -- as before, it seems to me this being a side plan of a forced perspective miniature as built would only make the "real" thing longer) to accomodate, as shown, a 29 ft. shuttle, ship becomes:

160 (hanger length) times 4 times 2.773, or.....1774 ft. long.

One can fool around a bit with this number (margins of error on the drawings and so forth) and get 1776, or 1787 (year the Constitution was signed) ("Constitution" class....ouch). But I can't see she can be much smaller, and not end up with the "Voyager-class" (to coin a phrase) hangar as so nicely reverse-engineered by Phil, to fit into a 947-ft Connie hull.

PHIL -- could I PAY you to do an analysis of the as-shown hangar/29 ft. shuttlecraft, to determine EXACTLY how big it is? I've been throwing wild-a** numbers at this for a couple of weeks now, think I've got it down to a (semi-)science...but would like some machine-enhanced confirmation.

David Winfrey
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Okay,
it seems that this thread is becoming more and more confusing.

Would everyone please chime in with a bottom line size they think the enterprise was or should be in feet, and a BRIEF(key word being "brief") explanation of their evidence/reasoning.
 
101 - 120 of 877 Posts
Top