Studio Scale TOS Enterprise(11.25 feet)

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."
 
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,

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.

Robert W
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Proper,

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.

Robert W


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://graphic-engine.swarthmore.edu/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/enterprise_nasm_00.jpg
http://www.nasm.si.edu/webimages/highres/WEB11635-2010h.jpg
http://www.startrekpropauthority.com/2009/05/star-trek-at-smithsonian-fully-lighted.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Shaw can you superimpose the current support in relation to the x-ray?
I have this smaller one (of the aft end) done...

sh_aft-cavity.jpg


... 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.


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.
 
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/highres/WEB11635-2010h.jpg

Proper,

Yes, I see what you mean and this particular link you supplied http://www.nasm.si.edu/webimages/highres/WEB11635-2010h.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?

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.

Robert W
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Enterprise1.jpg

Enterprise2.jpg

Enterprise3.jpg

Enterprise4.jpg

Enterprise5.jpg

EnterprisePlaque.jpg


Enjoy,
Kelvington
 

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. :lol
 
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.
 
I'm mostly talking about the location and the beautiful presentation of the present model--as in eye level. But yes, I too think the paint is overdone on the final restoration. However, the paint on the hanging 1984 restoration is underdone and unimpressive:

The Enterprise is commonly represented as being a uniform grey color. In fact, the original model had a slight greenish hue, and weathering that basically didn't show up at all once the model appeared on a 1960s era TV. In prints from film stock, and stills from the recently released DVDs however, the coloring shows quite clearly. The latest renovation of the original studio model by Ed Miarecki features strong weathering. His theory was that under bright studio lights, blooming would wash the detail out, resulting in the original look. The original model maker, Richard C. Datin, has said that the model was smooth, without any lines or engraved marks. The panel lines and weathering were added in the studio after the pilot was shot, and before TOS went into production as part of an upgrade.: USS Enterprise - The Original

I have created the image below from a photograph of the top of the primary hull taken when the Enterprise was unpacked upon arriving at the Smithsonian. You may be shocked at the amount of weathering on the hull, but I believe this reconstruction to be very accurate (except for some white spots around the lettering that I haven't cleaned up yet.) The whole ship was painted with a similar palette of weathering and hues: http://meshula.net/daystrom/1701/primary_top.jpg
 
Last edited:
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-
accelerator.jpg

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.
 
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-
accelerator.jpg

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 ! :love:thumbsup
 
Thanks Julian.

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.
 
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.
 
This thread is more than 8 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top