Hobbyist Forums banner

221 - 240 of 351 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,665 Posts
X15-A2 said:
If one were to make the deck longer, extending beyond the aft edge of the Warp Nacelle pylons, some of these restrictions would be removed, however one will quickly find themselves with an Engineering Hull mostly full of Hanger Deck operations and not much else.
The old Franz Joseph plans do, in fact, show the hangar deck extending all the way to the leading edge of the warp pylons — with shuttlecraft maintenance bays below the flight deck level and room for a bowling alley under that!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,335 Posts
Now that I can see the pics...!

Great work, Warped9! You've got the photomanip thing down to a science. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
The main problem with having a lower level hangar and maintenance area is that the turn-table/elevator is located too far aft to lower far enough. You run into the underside of the fan tail. Perhaps there is another elevator forward of the turntable...

M.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #224 (Edited)
Well, I don't know when I'll get around to doing the hangar deck and related facilities, but I do have some early ideas. And, yes, like the shuttlecraft it may well involve adapting things a bit to make it work somewhat like they seem to be suggesting onscreen. My shuttlecraft came out to a shade under 26ft. in length overall and that's not bad given that the fullsize mockup was itself about 22ft. and not far off the off-the-cuff reference of 24ft stated onscreen. I will try to work it all into a 947ft. E, but I don't have a problem with upping the size to a neater 1/96 scale for a 1080ft. starship.

X15-A2 said:
Warped, great work so far on the integrated Shuttlecraft. Looking forward to seeing more.
Thanks. And when I get around to doing my final notes sheet I'll have to get a list of names of those who inspired, influenced and helped me with this project, and certainly yours included for proper acknowledgement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
Warped9 said:
The concern I have with hardcopy is the cost of printing. For it to be viable and to get the cost down would mean a large run for bulk savings. I can't afford that unless I knew in advance what the demand would likely be. And I don't think it would be worth approaching someone like Pocket Books because they've made it plain that they're not into doing reference material anymore, and in the event they did no doubt it would have to be from "official" sources.

Having said that I will look into the cost of printing a limited number of sets and may be willing to do them on order for a select few. After all we're talking about thirty 11x17 in. pages here and that can't be cheap to get printed in limited number of sets. And, of course, there's also the packaging.

Another cheaper alternative would be to make the set available on CD. That certainly gets around the cost factor to a large extent and I can do everything at home, and that would include a hard case or nice envelope as well as a nicely done cd label. Of course that would still mean the customer would have to get the hardcopies printed themselves. Another advantage of this is that the originals, so to speak, wouldn't yellow and wear with age.
Back when I sold blueprints I had drawn back around 1990/91 (which was how I paid for a couple quarters of school back then) I had drawn up everything on 36"x24" vellum. I did runs of about 100 copies for about $25 at a blueprint copy place when I first started out. I quickly found that it was easier to just sell the vellum copy to the comic book store and let them deal with printing (I sold my Excelsior one-sheet vellum for about $500 as I recall, I later saw copies being sold at conventions for around $5 a piece).

With the size you've chosen (17"x11") you could 4 up the sheets and make 36"x24" vellums (8 of them) to have them printed up as actual blueprints.

This would keep the cost of printing down and you'd get the "real" blueprint feel.

I would suggest this in addition to the idea of using CDs. For obvious reasons 36"x24" sheets can be a little bit of a pain to make copies of for those who would want to use them as plans for models... being able to print off 17"x11" sheets that could be used while building a Shuttlecraft (and not worrying about damaging those sheets in the process) is a great resource.

As long as you are not "profiting" from this, and it is small in scope, you'll avoid any issues with the Trek Franchise. The way I saw it back when I had drawn up the plans I sold back 15 years ago was that I was getting paid for just my time and effort... and nothing more. That was also why I ended up selling the vellums, as I didn't want to be involved in charging $5 for a 25¢ copy.

Also, if you are doing these in Illustrator, I'd suggest creating PDFs strait out of Illustrator (with embedded fonts). PDF is a native Illustrator format and with everything as vectors, not only will the plans scale nicely, they should be smaller (file size wise) than any rasterized version. There are lots of utilities to combine single PDFs if you wanted to have them as a single file (if you don't have Acrobat), and the final product should fit nicely on a CD.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #227 (Edited)
Shaw said:
Back when I sold blueprints I had drawn back around 1990/91 (which was how I paid for a couple quarters of school back then) I had drawn up everything on 36"x24" vellum. I did runs of about 100 copies for about $25 at a blueprint copy place when I first started out. I quickly found that it was easier to just sell the vellum copy to the comic book store and let them deal with printing (I sold my Excelsior one-sheet vellum for about $500 as I recall, I later saw copies being sold at conventions for around $5 a piece).

With the size you've chosen (17"x11") you could 4 up the sheets and make 36"x24" vellums (8 of them) to have them printed up as actual blueprints.

This would keep the cost of printing down and you'd get the "real" blueprint feel.

I would suggest this in addition to the idea of using CDs. For obvious reasons 36"x24" sheets can be a little bit of a pain to make copies of for those who would want to use them as plans for models... being able to print off 17"x11" sheets that could be used while building a Shuttlecraft (and not worrying about damaging those sheets in the process) is a great resource.

As long as you are not "profiting" from this, and it is small in scope, you'll avoid any issues with the Trek Franchise. The way I saw it back when I had drawn up the plans I sold back 15 years ago was that I was getting paid for just my time and effort... and nothing more. That was also why I ended up selling the vellums, as I didn't want to be involved in charging $5 for a 25¢ copy.

Also, if you are doing these in Illustrator, I'd suggest creating PDFs strait out of Illustrator (with embedded fonts). PDF is a native Illustrator format and with everything as vectors, not only will the plans scale nicely, they should be smaller (file size wise) than any rasterized version. There are lots of utilities to combine single PDFs if you wanted to have them as a single file (if you don't have Acrobat), and the final product should fit nicely on a CD.
Personally I'm not fond of 22x17 or larger sheets because they're too unweildy. With the 17x11 sheets I'm drawing a ship that is a nice 1/24 scale so anyone who wishes can take measurements right off the sheets for their own scratchbuild model.

I am drawing them in Adobe Illustrator CS and Photoshop CS and will eventually be saving them in a PDF file. From there I can make them available for download or easily put them onto CD. I have Acrobat but My OS X Tiger also has Automator which can put things into PDF very easily.

Profit? I wish. Considering how much time I'm putting into this I can't imagine how much I'd have to charge to make up for it. At this point I'll be happy to clear my expenses. Presently I'm more concerned with acheiving a final work that I can be proud of and others can be pleased with. I've seen other fan generated work such as the Ships Of The Star Fleet, Shane Johnson's Mr. Scott's Guide to The Enterprise and FJ's Booklet Of General Plans and Starfleet Technical Manual as well as Jackill's books. And, of course, there's also David Kimble's ST-TMP Blueprints, the Avenger-class frigate blueprints, the Geoffrey Mandel freighter blueprints, Masao's Starfleet Museum site and a host of other stuff online. And finally there's Alan Sinclair's and Charles Casimiro's Enterprise drawings as well as Phil Broad's Galileo fullsixe mockup drawings. I think I can fairly say that my work might stand amongst some of those better works, or at least that's what I'm striving for.

I know there are some that would love their work to be adopted by Paramount and Pocket and thus get that sense of legitimacy such a nod would grant, but I'm not concerned with that. This and my other work is my interpretation of stuff in the TOS, TAS and TMP Trek universe while striving to remain as true as possible with the source material (or at least its apparent intent and/or inference), and others are free to agree, accept or reject as to their liking without me feeling slighted in the least.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #228 (Edited)
*Sigh*

Y-, you guys! Now you've gotten me thinking about the damned hangar deck just when I was trying to focus on getting this project done.

There's one idea that came to me while lying awake in bed this morning in the early a.m. I won't know how well it pans out until I sit down and start doing some serious measurements, drawings and scaling. Essentially, though, my idea relates to the turntable elevator and how shuttlecraft are handled aboard ship.

We already know that Federation science has mastered (or at least become reasonably proficient) with manipulating gravity and antigravity. This is demonstrated by the Enterprise artificial gravity that is localized and tightly restricted to the decks holding people and objects down onto the floor. Outside of that the artificial gravity effect does not appear to extend beyond the ship's hull to affect anything that could be nearby. And so their AG hasn't little to nothing to do with actual physical mass as a planet's or star's natural gravity does. This idea is also reinforced by the use of modestly sized hand held "antigrav" units we've seen in "The Changeling" and "Obsesson."

Note that unlike contemporary aircraft and the shuttle orbitor the shuttlecraft don't have wheels but rather landing pads. And so some mechanism must be utilized to move the vehicles about the hangar deck area. I can also envision some manner of magnetic and/or mechanical clamping device used to secure the vehicles into place once parked to prevent unwanted shifting whenever the ship experiences serious attitude changes than even affect the ship's otherwise very effective artificial gravity and inertial systems.

But the turtable/elevator, it's location and how it's utilized, that needs to be addressed.

Imagine for a moment: A shuttlecraft enters the hangar guided by a shipboard tractor beam guidance system which lands the craft automatically and moves it into an exact postion on the T/E. Magnetic clamps steadfastly hold the craft in an exact position on the T/E. The T/E may now rotate 90 degrees to allow for passengers to disembark as seen in "Journey To Babel." Now, after debarkation, one of two things happen: either the craft is moved to a parking place to one side and aft of the T/E or the craft needs to be brought down into the lower level maintenance area for service and/or storage. For the latter to happen how can it work?

We already know that the cut of the fantail precludes a full deck height under the flight deck to allow for the shuttlecraft to fit properly there. But maybe the T/E doesn't operate exactly like a conventional lift. Witness the ship's turbolift cars which move sideways as well as up-and-down. Perhaps the T/E doesn't have to lower full shuttlecraft height.

And so again imagine: after debarkation the craft is rotated again 90 degrees to face the craft's distinctly slanted bow directly forward. Our T/E doesn't have a conventional centrally located hydraulic (or whatever) lift system. Rather the T/E may be supported by three points about its outer rim that run in tandem on tracks. With the shuttlecraft facing bow wards the T/E lowers as far as it can straight down, but when it can descend no further it begins to slide on its tracks on a forward downwards angle until it is clear of the opening above and has descended fully into the lower level. At this point another tractor beam or antigrav system moves the shuttlecraft into a berthing postion and the T/E returns upwards to its place on the flight deck.

Like I said I have to do some drawings and measurements to see how this can work. Also remember that all we've really seen of the hangar deck is a forced perspective minature set that like the shuttlecraft may not properly reflect exact sizes and positions of objects. There can be some leeway for adaptation and still look near exactly like what we're familiar with onscreen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Scotpens,

Well, Mr Joseph showed a lot of things in his plans that won't work in real life. For one thing, his decks were only 6 feet high. When one begings to look at realistic dimensions, then the ship starts getting really tight for space.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #230
Seeing FJ's take on the shuttlecraft in his Technical Manual is now rather quaint. Overall it bears only superficial resemblance to what we saw onscreen in shape, detail and scale.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #231
Even as I creep towards eventual completion of this project I'm already considering what I'll be tackling next. I've already mentioned that at some point I'll be adapting the TAS shuttle designs into something more credible within TOS' "reality." I also intend to render the TMP era shuttlecraft and this is where things could get interesting.

The detachable part of the Vulcan shuttlecraft seen in TMP can't be the standard Starfleet shipboard carried shuttlecraft--it's simply too damned big. Mind you in a shot of the hangar and cargo area facilities of the TMP refit E we do se a glimpse of the tail end of what appears to be this shuttlecraft on the level under the main flight deck. I'm thinking that this may be a smaller variant of the Vulcan shuttlecraft, which will, of course, entail adapting the design into a more manageable package.

The other movie era shuttlecraft is the TFF Galileo 5. In size it's comparable to my 26ft. shuttlecraft and so no real size problems there. But the interior may have to be redressed to make the vehicle more analogous to the TOS shuttlecraft concept and in the the process lose the really stupid aft end door.

And finally there's a pre TOS shuttlecraft idea I'm sketching out as well as TOS era workbees of which the Enterprise may carry two or three of them below the hangar facilities in the fantail area. Indeed that rectangle seen under the fantail could well be a hatch that opens for the workpods when needed.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #232
Mariner Class said:
Warped9 said:
Even as I creep towards eventual completion of this project I'm already considering what I'll be tackling next. I've already mentioned that at some point I'll be adapting the TAS shuttle designs into something more credible within TOS' "reality." I also intend to render the TMP era shuttlecraft and this is where things could get interesting.

The detachable part of the Vulcan shuttlecraft seen in TMP can't be the standard Starfleet shipboard carried shuttlecraft--it's simply too damned big. Mind you in a shot of the hangar and cargo area facilities of the TMP refit E we do se a glimpse of the tail end of what appears to be this shuttlecraft on the level under the main flight deck. I'm thinking that this may be a smaller variant of the Vulcan shuttlecraft, which will, of course, entail adapting the design into a more manageable package.
No need, the TMP Vulcan "long-range" shuttle was never supposed to inhabit the hangars anyway.

That's what the standard version was for.



And don't forget the accessories!



Also, feel free to add side doors. Andy would have done that, as per his 2005 interview @ Trekplace.
I had heard of a smaller version yet have never seen drawings of it otrher than the "accessories" image of which I have a copy already. Do you have a larger version of that first schematic like image I could study more? And if so could you please email it to me?

Actually as I study this image more I'm still skeptical. That smaller version is still forty feet long and about half that wide and that's big considering that the TMP refit E isn't that much bigger than the TOS E. This shuttle is 14 feet longer than my 26ft. shuttlecraft and nearly twice as wide.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #233 (Edited)
Thinking ahead...

Everything is not exactly to scale and in proportion in these sketches, but they do give a fair idea of the direction I'm leaning towards. This is still a sizable craft and certainly not meant to be carried regularly aboard ship, but it is suitable for ship-to-ship rendezvous. The scoutship is meant for starbases and outposts that may require longrange rapid tranport on short notice. It is somewhat of a TOS era runabout and a precursor to the TMP era Vulcan longrange shuttlecraft.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #235 (Edited)
There are further details to be worked out on the TAS adaptations yet they'll have to stay as basic sketches for awhile until I complete my Class F shuttlecraft plans.

When I think of it I could just about do an entire book or volume on just the pre TOS to TMP era shuttlecraft.

Hmmm... Starfleet Shuttlecraft Reference Manual: 2250-2290. Sounds kinda cool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,665 Posts
I like the third design — the smooth one with the faired-in engines. Looks like a cross between the Proteus and the B-2 stealth bomber.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #237
Here's a little something that I've referred to throughout the thread:


Way back when TAS bowed in 1973 I was initially fascinated with the new shuttlecraft designs. Yet even then at age 14 I knew the scoutship in "The Slaver Weapon" could never work in the live-action TOS hangar deck. And so I set out to design a TOS equivalent to the TAS scoutship, and I was intent on minimizing the size as much as possible.

The above image is a current sketch of my idea and my initial concept for a live-action Copernicus. Even now as I look at it I'm still inspired to try and make it work. Initially my Class F shuttlecraft came out around 31ft. before I managed to rescale it down to 26ft. If I could keep my Copernicus concept to about 31ft. as well the height and width being near exactly the same as my Class F then it just might still work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,665 Posts
I like that one, too. Looks like a logical development from the Class F. It's interesting to note that the shuttle designers have finally adopted the "nosewheel" (or "nosepad") as opposed to "taildragger" landing-gear arrangement — more than two centuries after most of the aviation industry did!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #239
Well in fairness shuttlecraft don't land like airplanes but rather more like helicopters as true VTOLs (vertical take off and landings).

I'm going to do a slight reclassification in my drawings as Class F and Class F2 rather than H. If I can make my 33 year old adaptation work then I'll make it the Class G or H.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #240
I've done some more accurate measurements and this version can be done at about 29ft. Cool. That's only a tad over 3ft. longer than my Class F shuttlecraft of just under 26ft. And this new version would be near exactly the same height and width as the Class F.

Love it when things come together. Down the road if the drawings come out looking right than this new Class G will replace my earlier Class H although I will carry over some design elements of the H.
 
221 - 240 of 351 Posts
Top