Hobbyist Forums banner

What kind of shuttlecraft would you like?

  • 1/24 scale

    Votes: 63 62.4%
  • 1/32 scale

    Votes: 28 27.7%
  • Full-size interior (as seen onscreen)

    Votes: 17 16.8%
  • Scaled interior (to fit within a yet-to-be-determined exterior)

    Votes: 62 61.4%
  • Working access hatch & retractable forward landing pads

    Votes: 45 44.6%
  • Alternate parts & decals (for different vehicles and interior variations)

    Votes: 46 45.5%
  • Removable or transparent alternate parts to display the interior

    Votes: 30 29.7%
  • Figures (perhaps 2-4 and this could be offered aftermarket)

    Votes: 51 50.5%
  • Lighting kit (could also be offered aftermarket)

    Votes: 42 41.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 5.9%
1 - 20 of 161 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Okay, mods, I know there's another thread discussing this subject, but now it's beginning to get specialized and perhaps we can have a new place to discuss the kit R2 will (hopefully) finally produced. Here is where we can weigh in on what we'd like to see and discuss what form the final kit might actually take. The goal is not to tell the folks at R2 what must be, but to offer suggestions and food for thought amongst the wish lists.

I would urge posters to indicate what is most important rather than just clicking "all of the above." :)


Note: I hope I haven't forgotten anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,194 Posts
Ok, Thanks for the thread!

I'm most interested in the exterior. A hybrid of the filming model and the
full sized mock up. I would lean to the filming miniature as I would guess more real world/filming limitations were taken with the full sized mock up, I'm guessing the filming model was closest to what MJ had in mind.

The interior should be as close to the original set as possible, but should not drive the kit. The reason I say this is because the choice of lenses, filters, perspective all modify what the set was to what the director wanted (or as close as he could get). If the interior needs to be "adjusted" to get it to look right so be it.

As for scale, I'm OK with either 1/32 or 1/24, or whatever. I do worry that a 1/24th might be too big for shelf space.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
This was in another thread, but I think it's pertinent here.

I think that in this case we need to base the "want list" on the actual model size...
Gary raised this issue that it really isn't determined what size the shuttlecraft was really meant to be. Well, yeah, that's what some of us have been wrestling with since the dark days of the '70s.

There are some who are going to insist the interior be as close as possible to what we see onscreen and not worry about whether the exterior could actually work within the Enterprise's hangar facilities. This is little different than the insistence the bridge simply has to be facing forward despite convincing evidence it's offset. Some might insist the exterior can't be any more than 24ft. overall in length even though that means completely ignoring the interior we saw.

Matt Jefferies was certainly aware of the discrepancies between the exterior mock-up and interior set so is it safe to assume the "real" shuttlecraft MJ had in mind was a compromise somewhere in the middle? Lynne Miller says MJ once told her the exterior was built to 3/4 scale. Well, was his reply (years after the fact) meant literally and exactly or approximately? Who knows? Maybe if original construction drawings could be unearthed from somewhere then Gary could have something more definitive to go on.

Without actual construction drawings the only recourse is to weigh every bit of information available about the shuttlecraft then try to piece it all together into a coherent and integrated whole.

- What does the exterior look like? We have images of the full-size exterior mock-up and the filming miniature. That's all we have without actual construction drawings from the period.
- What does the interior look like? We have visuals of the interior set, but without original construction drawings that's all we have.
- How much room does the Enterprise's flight deck afford? There's some flexibility here, but we know the ship likely isn't smaller than 947ft. and quite possibly a bit larger, somewhere about 100ft. or so larger.
- Is there any evidence regarding the originally intended size for the exterior? There are concept sketches illustrating a lees spacious interior than what we saw onscreen. There are also apparent clues right onscreen in how the interior set was used.
- How much weight is each bit of evidence to be given? Ah, now we come down to interpretation and people are going to come to differing conclusions influenced by what each considers important.

Gary and Jamie and company have already given us evidence of their intent regardless of what size they conclude the "real" shuttlecraft is supposed to be. They chose to create a model of the starship Enterprise as opposed to simply replicating an approximation of the 11ft. studio model. In like manner I think they intend to make a model of the shuttlecraft Galileo rather than just replicating a plywood and metal studio mock-up.

That's an important distinction because they're approaching the subject little differently than making a quality model of an actual aircraft or naval ship. They're approaching the subject matter as if it were meant to be real rather than as merely a fictional approximation.

It means they might be as crazy as the rest of us. :lol:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
As for scale, I'm OK with either 1/32 or 1/24, or whatever. I do worry that a 1/24th might be too big for shelf space.
1/32 scale:
24ft. shuttlecraft = 9in.
26ft. shuttlecraft = 9.75in.
29ft. shuttlecraft = 10.875in.

1/24 scale:
24ft. shuttlecraft = 12in.
26ft. shuttlecraft = 13in.
29ft. shuttlecraft = 14.5in.

Note that the above measurements are not exact in that the "real" vehicle would likely measure out to fractions of an inch rather than dead-on the foot.

And if you're voting "other" then it would be kinda nice to know what that other thing is. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
718 Posts
My "wants"...

1) 1/24 scale. A 1/32 scale might be nice as a "garage kit" (in order to sit alongside other 1/32 garage-kit shuttles), but wouldn't permit the sort of highly-detailed interior work I think this subject really requires. 1/24 is good for a "complete shuttle" while 1/32 is good for an "exterior only" shuttle, in other words.

2) A 24' BODY (or in other words, a 26' overall length). This works with Kirk's spoken line (which has to remain canon, IMHO). We can accept that Kirk might have only meant the main fuselage... we can't accept that Kirk was just totally wrong, though. But the 24' total length is just too small. The 26' overall length works very nicely.

3) An interior scaled to fit, with a full aft compartment, into that 24' body.

4) I don't feel the need to have any "working" parts, but I want OPTIONAL POSITIONS for certain parts. In other words... no need to have the hatch "retractable" but I should be able to build my kit with the hatch open, or closed, as I see fit. Same with the front (nacelle-mounted) pads, and even the aft pad (which should be "poseable" but not "moveable" if that makes sense).

5) Alternative parts? That should be left to the aftermarket, I think. No need to have R2 spend lots of extra money for parts that the majority of builders will never use. If someone wants the "lab interior" version, per "The Immunity Syndrome," that can be made as an after-market item. And I suspect that some non-canon aftermarket interiors (say, an ambulance interior?) would come along as well.

6) Alternative decals? Well... yeah, that's pretty much a no-brainer, and fits well with R2's business strategy. But what labels should there be? We know the Columbus, and (with the remastered series) we know the markings for the starbase shuttle. Other than that... I don't think R2 should provide anything "non-canon." Aftermarket can produce as much additional as we like, and I'm sure JTGraphics and others will start cranking out custom decal sheets on-demand almost immediately!

7) While I like the idea of the transparent parts, I don't want to pay extra for that in my kit. Maybe that can be provided as either an "aftermarket" version... or perhaps R2 can shoot a limited production run of clear styrene parts, available separately?

I don't want them to shoot the "production" kit from clear styrene... because clear styrene is, by definition, much more brittle than the filled, and "alloyed" material normally used for kits like this. But there's no reason that they can't do a "special edition" clear version. It would be virtually no additional cost for them.

8) Figures? I think that should be left entirely to "aftermarket." And if they do this in a standard scale (like 1/32 or 1/24), there are plenty of existing figures, with a wide range of poses, which could be "converted" to Star Trek figures, as well.

For instance... THIS would be pretty easy to alter into a TOS-era female starfleet officer who Kirk would be panting over!

And these figures would be great, with minimal "resculpting," to do a full shuttle diorama:

Here

or

Here

9) I think that interior lighting should be an option. Thus, the interior panels should all be shot in clear, and there should be wiring "routing" in the model to permit a white LED to be put behind each panel. The ceiling lighting might be a bit more complicated, but not too much, really... since we're still talking a "double hull" region up there.

I'd recommend putting the batteries inside of the impulse engine shroud. This wouldn't be too hard to accomplish... even with the engine shroud being "lightable" itself. I'd put the switch behind a "fold out panel" on the aft of the hull... or make one of those panels a "press to switch" button itself.

Those should be part of the kit, as provided. As for "nacelle lighting," well, that was never seen on-screen, so I'd leave it out. But I'd leave routing space for wires, for anyone who wants to do that (like what Rob seems to have been trying to do with his... using the 1:1000 R2 Enterprise nacelle PCBA in there!)

10) And finally...

I want to be able to show the front windows in "open" or "closed" state. Yes, that's the one place I differ from W9... I'd rather have the window positions "tweaked" a bit than have them not be "windows" at all. We we should have options to build with "windows open" or "windows closed" or any combination of windows mixed, just like with the main hatch, the aft compartment hatch, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
I voted for 1/24th and only 1/24th as a requirement.
Really I'm not concerned so much about the scale as size - scale is to a degree conjecture as the "full-size" prop was not constructed full-size.
I would like to see something larger than the original AMT version.

I don't care about the interior - the set for the interior was disappointing; the kit version even more so.
There are issues related to the interior set beyond just a size difference as others have pointed out.
If someone wanted to offer a resin add-on for the interior fine but no big deal.
The shuttlecraft design didn't provide viewports you could actually see through, so there is no problem in that regard.

By eliminating the interior you also eliminate the need for clear parts (unless you wanted to do the two small windows on the doors).

The big advantage is that you don't have to try and reconcile the discrepency between the interior dimensions and the exterior.

My two cents.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
An open or closed hatch and extended or retracted landing pads is what I actually meant. I worded that improperly.

The overhead lighting panel---aren't there lighting sheets available and could that be included if possible? Again this could be aftermarket.

Alternate decals. Well, TOS gave us Galileo and Columbus and TAS (as well as TFF) gave us Copernicus. Take from that what you will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,446 Posts
I voted for the transparent or removavle exterior piece because no matter what other options R2 will give us, like for the interior we should be able to show off the interior.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
718 Posts
The overhead lighting panel---aren't there lighting sheets available and could that be included if possible? Again this could be aftermarket.
Well, while the sheet itself is quite thin, it requires a supporting electronic module (a high-frequency resonator, essentially) to work. That would have to go someplace.
Alternate decals. Well, TOS gave us Galileo and Columbus and TAS (as well as TFF) gave us Copernicus. Take from that what you will.
But, the Copernicus, to me, is not one of the "standard shuttles" at all. (In my personal-canon version, this was a special-purpose craft, at one point replaced by an aquashuttle for a specific mission, which is normally carried in the underside secondary hull underneath the long rectangular "hatch" down there.)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
Well TFF had a Copernicus as a standard movie era shuttlecraft. And since TFF also had a Galileo one could extrapolate backwards, no different than the Surya-class was extrapolated from the Reliant.

I agree that some of the options I mentioned could be offered as aftermarket pieces. That said I don't think it would be very involved to include a couple of cabinet sized devices as well as some of those tech bits we saw stuck onto the walls in the second season.

The figures and the lighting parts could and perhaps should be aftermarket items. Consequently that would simplify things for R2 and help reduce costs. That said it would be nice if the shuttlecraft kit allowed for lighting by having clear parts for the impulse engine ports and the forward "windows" should the individual modeler decide to go that route.

Alternate transparent parts to supplant the roof and/or the port or starboard upper side perhaps should be offered aftermarket also. Again it helps simplify things for R2.

The simpler the model can be made (relatively speaking) then perhaps the easier to justify a 1/24 scale kit over a 1/32.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
10) And finally...

I want to be able to show the front windows in "open" or "closed" state. Yes, that's the one place I differ from W9... I'd rather have the window positions "tweaked" a bit than have them not be "windows" at all. We we should have options to build with "windows open" or "windows closed" or any combination of windows mixed, just like with the main hatch, the aft compartment hatch, etc.
This, my friend, is where you run into a seriously major headache. To allow for the "windows" both inside and out to line up you have widen the interior considerably to the point of losing any practical double hull structure (on the sides) and really changing the appearance of the interior. You not only now have a pointlessly wide cabin (wider than the onscreen version) but you also have to steepen the angle of the forward bulkhead to match the angle of the exterior hull. And another point not previously mentioned: the forward exterior hull is curved while the interior bulkhead is flat---yet another wrinkle to the exterior/interior discrepancies. Do you now widen, steepen the angle and curve the forward bulkead (and hence drastically change the appearance of the interior) to accommodate windows that are essentially pointless to the navigator and pilot? And if you widen the cabin correspondingly then how do you accommodate the swing-out equipment compartments seen in the shuttlecraft's interior walls?

Granted to a lot of people this mightn't matter for the purpose of presentation, but you immediately jettison the notion of treating this as a "real" vehicle we imagined seeing onscreen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
A fun topic, thanks for putting the poll together.

The AMT Shuttle offered a kind of fun (for kids of course....) that nothing other than the Exploration Set offered, interactability. Taking the lid off the shuttle allowed you to play inside it...I'd hate to see that go away....for my daughter of course.

As for me, while inaccurate, the AMT kit is a good starting point for the new kit. It certainly shouldn't be anything less and absolutely should be more. I'm in for 24", interior, working/optional set doors & gear. I think clear pieces for lighting are a must but would rather have a pop-off top than a clear one that I'd never use.

The figures....well here I am a bit conflicted. Some of the aftermarket figures I've seen are pretty cool, but so expensive that I'd never be able to buy them. Case in point - the Batman & Robin figures for the 1:18 Hotwheels Batmobile from Pimpmybatmobile.....beautifully done but something like $90 for the pair. My wife would kill me. The LIS Robinson family are more reasonable but still add quite a chunk to the kit price. I say R2 should include them, and do them as well as possible, and let the aftermarket improve upon them for those wish a lot of coin....it shouldn't affect the kit price much.

Anyhow those are my thoughts on the matter, I'm glad it's going to happen either way.

Tib
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
Why are you talking 1/24th when 1/32 has been decided already by Round 2?
Well, has it actually been confirmed? All we've seen so far is the presentation and poll results from the Wonderfest 2012 video. Isn't it still on open question until they formally announce it's been green-lighted for development and production?

At any rate the ensuing discussion can apply pretty much just as easily to a 1/32 scale model as a 1/24.

The AMT Shuttle offered a kind of fun (for kids of course....) that nothing other than the Exploration Set offered, interactability. Taking the lid off the shuttle allowed you to play inside it...I'd hate to see that go away....

Tib
I think this is certainly doable although there are some considerations in regard to accuracy. Where the upper hull meets stabilizer/rim is not actually a right-angle (or near right-angle) joint or seam. All along the joint it is a round. In other words the sides curve sharply into the rim. This is true of the sloping forward hull as well where it meets the rim. The underside hull is the same. There are other considerations as well in the aft area of the ship where there is no convenient midpoint to accommodate a seam. A removable top isn't impossible, but it would take somewhat more consideration than the way AMT did it.

I think it boils down to how does one want to be able to see the interior? Remove the whole upper hull or just the roof (relatively easy) or remove one or either of the upper hull sides?


Perhaps R2 could also adopt some of the ideas they're doing with the 1/350 TOS E. Namely, parts molded in different coloured plastics as well as assembly facilitating painting of the model. Mind you this kit shouldn't be anywhere as complex as the Enterprise.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #17 (Edited)
It's still very early goings, but the trend so far seems to be...

Primary:
- preferably 1/24 scale (but a 1/32 scale kit wouldn't be a deal breaker)
- scaled interior to fit as yet-to-be-determined exterior
- kit made to facilitate lighting

Secondary:
- option for access hatch to be open or closed and landing pads extended or retracted
- alternate decals
- option to remove some part of the hull to display the interior.

Nice to haves, but not absolutely necessary since can be done aftermarket:
- lighting kit
- alternate parts for different interior variations
- crew figures
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
718 Posts
Why are you talking 1/24th when 1/32 has been decided already by Round 2?
Has it been "decided?" I've seen no real indication of that. All they've really said is that they plan to do the TOS shuttle. It seems to me that no design work has even started, so they're not commited to ANYTHING yet.

Now is the best time for us to give our input... before any production choices have been made or any engineering resources expended!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
My "wants"...

2) A 24' BODY (or in other words, a 26' overall length). This works with Kirk's spoken line (which has to remain canon, IMHO). We can accept that Kirk might have only meant the main fuselage... we can't accept that Kirk was just totally wrong, though. But the 24' total length is just too small. The 26' overall length works very nicely.
For the record (in case anyone is interested) these were my final dimensions:

Length = 8.0549m. = 26.426837ft. (26'-5 1/4")
Width = 5.0473m. = 16.559383ft. (16'-6 11/16")
Height = 2.8298m. = 9.2841207ft. (9'-3 13/32")

And the main hull is about 2 feet shorter than the overall length so close enough to work for that "24ft. shuttlecraft" reference spoken onscreen.


1/32 scale:
Length = 9.91in.
Width = 6.21in.
Height = 3.48in.

1/24 scale:
Length = 13.21in.
Width = 8.28in.
Height = 4.64"
 
1 - 20 of 161 Posts
Top