Studio Scale TOS Enterprise(11.25 feet)

Here is the Original E-

The stand it sits on tells me there might be some issues. But it has stood up well. Considering it wasn't built to last(just through the series photography), nobody expected it to still be around after 47 years.


That solid hull is why the windows below and forward of the pylons were not lit.

Making things solid is not always a good thing. Even solid objects can deform over time(I've seen stone columns bowing outward under a load) . It's best to keep things light as possible, with a structure that has more strength than you would ever need. And in the case of this type of model you need to gain access to the interior. The last thing you want to have to do is rebuild a portion of the model just to change a burned out light.

I'm not worried about the stability of the structure, since I'm using aluminum it would be very stable. Now metals can flex, but since the model will be made of fiberglass. It would be nowhere near the weight that would make the metal flex. Plus fiberglass can be layered up to be very strong(even stronger when bonded to the aluminum) and it only has to support itself. All of this I considered when I was designing the model.

It's my hope that some of you take this info into consideration with your own builds. Whatever subject they are, I assume you guys are like me. When you build a model you want it to last.

While the supports and dorsal were solid, the secondary hull wasn't. It was built like a barrel, with open cavities inside. The reason for the lighting being the way it was was because they cut holes in the front and back to access the forward most and rear most cavities. All the wiring between was taped to the outside of the hull until the model was modified to serve as a display piece.

This is approximately what the unturned barrel structure look like...



As for the strength and longevity of the original model, for a good portion of it's life it was hanging rather than sitting. In that hanging position, the weight of the model was supported via points on the nacelles and the dorsal (though most of the weight was carried by the dorsal point).



Before the model was modified for the second pilot, the model was filmed hanging from a single wire that passed through a channel hole in the dorsal to an anchor point at the bottom the the front cavity of the secondary hull... a point that still exist today (and can be seen in the x-rays of the model).

Of course none of that has any baring on this model project.

But one thing you might consider... the way the original model's nacelles were built, half the weight of them was originally in the front third of the nacelle. They were almost balanced about the point where the supports attached to the nacelle. So having hollow nacelles might not be enough, you might want to add weight to the front end of them to help keep them true.

given this evidence, I would amend my original thought of solidifying the entire secondary hull to just the section between the two barrel stays on either side of the pylons

When I said solid I should have said inaccessible.

Shaw can you superimpose the current support in relation to the x-ray?

Also keep in mind that the engines were heavy forward of the pylon (I believe they were solid wood) and they they were sheet metal behind the pylons except at the end. This arrangement would seem to put the center of the weight distribution near the pylon with the back of the engine basically can-levered (sp?) out.

Has anybody noticed how the starboard nacelle on the Smithsonian model seems to be slanting upward? When compared with the saucer section it appears that the port one is about right while the starboard has a case of "opposite droop."

Proper said:

---

Has anybody noticed how the starboard nacelle on the Smithsonian model seems to be slanting upward? When compared with the saucer section it appears that the port one is about right while the starboard has a case of "opposite droop."

[FONT=Verdana]Proper,[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Don't forget to take lens warp into account when viewing things from photographs . . . symmetry can get pretty skewed, any minor irregularity gets amplified or totally pulled out of whack. You probably already know this, but its worth repeating, photographs contain a bunch of anomalies and perspective illusions, which makes it pretty tough judging actual size and alignment issues. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Robert W[/FONT]

Also the starboard nacelle is lighter then the port nacelle. It does not have any of the inboard detail (since it was never seen on camera) as the port nacelle which apparently causes the port nacelle to sag due to the weight.

Anybody have an aft or head on view of the E?

I'll bet it's not only going down, but it's twisting outward.

Atemylunch said:

---

Shaw can you superimpose the current support in relation to the x-ray?

I have this smaller one (of the aft end) done...



... but I think I have a nice enough side view of secondary hull that I can do the full length x-ray in a little while.

feek61 said:

---

Also the starboard nacelle is lighter then the port nacelle. It does not have any of the inboard detail (since it was never seen on camera) as the port nacelle which apparently causes the port nacelle to sag due to the weight.

In addition to this, I think the weight balance was thrown off with the removal of the original wooden domes and the hollowing of portions of the front third of the nacelles for the series.

Proper said:

---

I've seen several photos of the Smith. ship as currently displayed, from various angles, and the starboard nacelle looks oddly angled, indeed. Or it may be that the port nacelle is sagging instead. My guess is the misaligned occured during the last restoration as this doesn't seem to be an issue in earlier photos where the ship is hanging (see last url).

http://www.nasm.si.edu/webimages/hig...1635-2010h.jpg

[FONT=Verdana]Proper,[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Yes, I see what you mean and this particular link you supplied http://www.nasm.si.edu/webimages/hig...1635-2010h.jpg does indeed indicate something askew with the nacelle. The two different shots, taken at varying distances show the same apparent sag . . . I thought the guy who restored this thing might have thought to make this right . . . or was it something that occurred after it sat for a while displayed as she now is?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][FONT=Verdana]All the more reason for the thought going into the armature of the 11 foot build going on right now, I like Atemylunch’s craftsmanship and intention that this thing remains true and durable. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Robert W [/FONT]

[/FONT]

Love this thread.

Love the fact that the Smithsonian X-ray'd the original model. Seriously cool.

A friend of mine gave me these slides that he (or a buddy) took of the Enterprise on display in 1985. The color is off and they are blurry, so I wouldn't use them as any sort of ideal reference. But I figured people would like to see them.

Gene

This is such a great project, here are my shots from the Smithsonian. From the year it went up.







Enjoy,
Kelvington

Kelvington said:

---

Thanks!

The model looks sooooo much better now, mounted the way it is, at "eye" level, rather than hanging the way it used to on that Medusan-ugly ceiling, in an atrocious looking presentation! And unbelievably they spelled Jefferies' name wrong on that plaque.

Kelvington,
I have that exact same picture! (the second one with the arrow), the exact angle.
the first time I visited (in '78) it was out for repair . the plaque was there and another sign saying it was out for maintainance. I was SOOO cheesed! I had come all that way just to see it. Later a friend went and took that picture for me.

I disagree, tho. Better to be hanging up in the air and White/grey than eye level and green.

Aztek Dummy said:

---

I disagree, tho. Better to be hanging up in the air and White/grey than eye level and green.

No kidding, just what was Miarecki thinking.

If it doesn't look like it did on TV(or what was photographed), then is is really a restoration, or a re-imagining?

Now I thought the ship was more or less unmolested, before the re-imagining.
Ed did do more to the original model than butcher the paint job. He changed things out right.

Such as-

Now one might say this is minor, but in a purists book this is a big no no.
A part was altered from the original. You can argue people's theory's all day, in reality he did what he wanted. The paint job proves it. I'll bet he was far more happy to be paid for the job, than any love of the E. Model builders in Hollywood are/were not paid all that well. And any boasting rights mean everything, because it means your next paycheck.

In this hobby you can't take people at their word. Just because it's published somewhere(especially around this ship). Keep in mind the guys that made this ship looked at it as a job. That job was about 47 years ago, memories can fade even after a few years. The only thing we can rely on is the photographic evidence, and the model itself. But if the model is altered, then things get real murky.

Atemylunch said:

---

Now I thought the ship was more or less unmolested, before the re-imagining.
Ed did do more to the original model than butcher the paint job. He changed things out right.

Such as-

Now one might say this is minor, but in a purists book this is a big no no.
A part was altered from the original. You can argue people's theory's all day, in reality he did what he wanted. The paint job proves it. I'll bet he was far more happy to be paid for the job, than any love of the E. Model builders in Hollywood are/were not paid all that well. And any boasting rights mean everything, because it means your next paycheck.

In this hobby you can't take people at their word. Just because it's published somewhere(especially around this ship). Keep in mind the guys that made this ship looked at it as a job. That job was about 47 years ago, memories can fade even after a few years. The only thing we can rely on is the photographic evidence, and the model itself. But if the model is altered, then things get real murky.

Plain and simple. I agree. Very wrong to do!

Steve

I'm not a Trekkie at all, but I'm in awe with all the techniques you're using to replicate such a complex shape. Thank you very much for the explanations, it is very interesting and I'm learning a lot reading your thread !

Keep up the good work and thanks again for sharing your knowledge !

Thanks Julian.

SteveNeill said:

---

Plain and simple. I agree. Very wrong to do!

Steve

And it's unnecessary. If he did a straight-up restoration(no access weathering, etc.), and charged the same amount of money. It would have taken less time and he would have walked away with more money in his pocket. Plus it would save having to suffer endless years of grief, from ST fans and model builders alike.

Atemylunch said:

---

I'm not sure what you are pointing to; that on the original, the crest touching the saucer is more square-ended? Or are you referring to the apparent color difference?

Proper said:

---

I'm not sure what you are pointing to; that on the original, the crest touching the saucer is more square-ended? Or are you referring to the apparent color difference?

The top rail of the accelerator was squared off originally.
It was like that on his bench, until he rounded himself for what looks like no real good reason. There is another thread about this subject that goes into more depth.
But anybody who would do even the smallest thing to a model will do big things to a model. Including altering color, and applying things that were never there. Then make excuses after the fact, especially when public consensus is against those alterations.