Hobbyist Forums banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,255 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi Guys, I'm sure there's been discussion about this before, but my memory isn't working well these days.

Anyone ever determine the true size of the USS Excelsior? It's my understanding that the 1531 foot length turned out to be 500 feet too short or something. Can anyone enlighten me?

Thanks!:confused:
 

·
Oxidation Genius
Joined
·
31,239 Posts
It's... a big ship :).

I've always gone with the 467 meter length (Ent-B) from the encyclopedia, personally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Yes it's because of the new fins on top of the engines but I call BS on it in every picture I've seen the new fins don't seem to stick out anymore then the ones on the sides of the Excelsior's engines so the ship shouldn't be longer.
 

·
Oxidation Genius
Joined
·
31,239 Posts
It's hood ornament that makes it longer. :freak:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,255 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Yeah, I'm getting 466.6488 (467m) from 1531 feet, too. I seem to recall that window placement or something had convinced someone that it should be 2000 or 2100 feet.

Anyway, thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,255 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Would this be 54 inches in 1/350?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,768 Posts
According to their own scale plan, ILM originally sized the Excelsior at 1531 feet, with the Klingon 'Bird of Prey' coming in at about 360 feet.

Now, we all know that the Klingon BOP changed size and scale innumerable times throughout it's many appearances on screen, and that many folks have claimed that the bridge, ports and deck height for the Excelsior were apparently too small at that size, and that the ship should be at least 25% larger. But, the only length "officially" stated for the Excelsior has always been 1531 ft.

This works out to be 52.5 inches long at 1/350 scale. Completely within the realm of possibility for a model kit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,255 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
A kit would be excellent. I keep thinking about making a model that size myself. I once thought of kitting it if I did, but when I brought up the topic of size, there was sturm and drang about it being too small at 1531-32. I stopped in my tracks because of the enormity of the project and because it seemed that there wasn't enough interest if it was at the 1531 foot/52.5 inch size. Seemed others wanted it at sizes varying over 60 inches.

The thought keeps crossing my mind to do this and I guess I'm curious as to what people think and the size of a kit that they would want if I take it that far.

Thoughts?
 

·
Oxidation Genius
Joined
·
31,239 Posts
This works out to be 52.5 inches long at 1/350 scale. Completely within the realm of possibility for a model kit.
Dave Metzner always said it was perfectly feasible thanks to the modular nature of the ship.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
718 Posts
My personal take... consistent with other things I've argued for in the past... is that we simply don't know the "real" length of this ship, and can't until someone lays it out in the level of detail really required. Basically until someone reverse-engineers the model.

There are some things that you'd need to do in order to determine the rough size.

1) Determine the deck-to-deck spacing. For me, I presume that this is essentially constant within each major generation of ships (to permit common component usage... ie, for the TMP/TWOK Enterprise and the Reliant to share the same turbolifts from the same manufacturer, for example).

However, this is not necessarily the same between the TMP/TWOK Enterprise and the Excelsior. The NX-2000 would LIKELY have been built with some of the same subsystems, but who's to say that the deck spacing wasn't different, even given all the other component-replacement issues that would have entailed. After all, the NX-2000 was built as a technology demonstrator, and only later converted into a ship-of-the-line.

Still... a good working start would be to presume the same deck spacing.

And by the way, for that same reason, I presume that deck spacing is TYPICALLY uniform throughout a ship. There may be some exception decks, but these would be rare exceptions, not common.

All IMHO... standard disclaimer.

And second...

2) You need to determine the vertical window spacing on the miniature. This is a bit more difficult than it might seem up-front, as reviewing DRAWINGS based upon models isn't quite the same as reviewing the miniatures themselves. You can probably get within, say, +/- 5% (or a total 10% span) from drawings.

Between those two things, you can come up with a pretty decent estimation of the ship size, in general. Except, of course, for those ships where the windows were just scattered about "higgledy piggledy" around the hull without much forethought.

Oh, yes, and also except for the primary hull rim windows, which are quite reasonably placed on the TOS ship but are not placed remotely appropriately for windows for a ship the size of the Enterprise in the TMP/TWOK/later Enterprise, at the quoted scale (though the dorsal and secondary hull windows are). In the case of those windows, I think we either need to treat them as sensor portholes, or as some odd form of terraced windows.

Aridas Sofia created a ship called the Ariel, some years back. I tried to come up with a good version of this ship, but realized that I could not reconcile some of the physical characteristics of the ship with the quoted scale... and rather than "redefining" Aridas' work, I chose to put that project aside.

But his primary hull thickness, and the rim details, were based upon the TMP ship's rim thickness and details, so the following images were appropriately based upon the TMP ship as well.

Note that the Ariel has the same rim thickness but has no undercut, so it's two full decks the entire way around.

Here's the "original" spacing. At this point, I had not yet put the windows in, but this will be useful for reviewing the window locations based upon my proposed upscaling, shown later:


Next, my "upscaled" version... interestingly, also about 125% of the "quoted" size. The deck ceilings are quite a bit higher, but even with this, the windows are only "marginally" useful (ie, the upper level ones would be for seated viewing, and the lower ones would be for viewing from a raised viewing platform at the outer wall).


I believe that the same issue will be seen with the Excelsior as well.

The best way to deal with those "windows" on the rim is really to treat them as sensors, not as portholes. That way, you can ignore their spacing, and focus on other details. I believe that the windows on the secondary hull are a much better guideline for the size of the Excelsior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,255 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Interesting! Funny that I never thought the tTMP windows weren't correct height. I think I assumed that the sensor bands were also the relative location of the floors of those rim decks. So it never bothered me for the TMP or Excelsior. Interesting, indeed!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,448 Posts
EAS has an article about the size of the Excelsior including an image of the Excelsior and the refit pointing out the hight difference of the saucer section between the 2 ships.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,255 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
EAS= ExAstrisScientia?

Cool, I'll take look!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,719 Posts
I based the size guesses for my drawings on rcs thrusters, phasers, saucer edge bands, window spacing, lettering, deflector dish, everything I could think of to compare between the Excelsior and the STTMP E. And most tellingly, when you make any one of the comparison pairs match up between the two ships, all the other comparison pairs also match up.
I personally think that any dimensions that came from anybody at or associated with Paramount are to be trusted about as much as the interior/exterior dimensions of the Jupiter 2s. If you make everything that can be matched match between the 1701 and the 2000, the 2000s length would be about 2027'. This is the absolute minimum size for the hull windows if they are windows to represent separate decks or and close to minimum for a st5 type shuttle to fit through the hangar doors. Drawings here:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/My Excelsior Drawings/
Also remember that the Excelsior was supposed to steal the thunder away from the E in every way. Sheer scale would be the most obvious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,255 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Wow! 2027 would yield a 69.5" model! Starseeker may I download your drawings? So with the rim hull windows of equivalent size, this is how large Excelsior would be? Ok....(breathing deeply)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,448 Posts
I remember back when Starseeker first did those drawings, I wnet and printed them out for my own use and through a bit of experimenting I discovered that if you print them out and you would like for them to be in scale with the AMT/ERTL kit then reduce the size by about 60%. And also comparing the window placements and the grid lines on Starseekers drawings with some images from the Star Trek magazine article on the design of the Excelsior they are pretty much dead on target.
Way to go there Starseeker, thanks a bundle!!!:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top