MR TOS Enterprise - new pics

[gyoung2993]

I have never experienced any problems with mine ,its #499,has always worked for the past 2 years ,I have only run mine for a total of probably 2 hours,since I have owned it ,but here it is....http://www.therpf.com/members/gyoun.../4198-enterprise-ncc-1701a-terminator-006.jpg

http://www.therpf.com/members/gyoung2993/albums/my-collection/4196-enterprise-ncc-1701a-002.jpg

 

[Proper]

Nice collection, gyoung!

Have you noticed any nacelle and or saucer droop on yours? I don't mean to alarm you or spoil anything for you, but in looking at your MR E I'm seeing a combination of slight saucer/nacelle droop... it could just be the angle of the photo, though. That's one of the problems that I have with mine. See posts #26-#28 here: http://www.therpf.com/f10/master-re...erprise-studio-scale-model-102391/index2.html

 

[gyoung2993]

Well the back of the nacelles were up against the wall ,I slid it forward and tried to line up the camera on it ,but I cant tell to be honest....http://www.therpf.com/members/gyoung2993/albums/my-collection/4200-enterprise-ncc-1701a.jpg

 

[gyoung2993]

Tell me what you think ,I really cant tell......

 

[Mechinyun]

Tell me what you think ,I really cant tell......

She looks fine to me. I wouldn't go looking any further for problems.
:thumbsup

 

[Proper]

Tell me what you think ,I really cant tell......

From the profile picture you provided it looks better.

In my opinion the saucer section may be tilting forward only about .5º and the nacelles are about the same amount off the other way. I used Photoshop to determine this. But this estimate is based on your pic and it's approximate. Click between the two photos below to see your original pic on the left and the Photoshop-corrected saucer and nacelles on the right. The Photoshopped pic to the right of the original shows how it should look, in my opinion. Again, this is just my best estimate.

 

[gyoung2993]

From the profile picture you provided it looks better.

In my opinion the saucer section may be tilting forward only about .5º and the nacelles are about the same amount off the other way. I used Photoshop to determine this. But this estimate is based on your pic and it's approximate. Click between the two photos below to see your original pic on the left and the Photoshop-corrected saucer and nacelles on the right. The Photoshopped pic to the right of the original shows how it should look, in my opinion. Again, this is just my best estimate.

Yeah ,I just never really looked at it until it seemed off with the back of the nacelles pressed against the drywall cause its sitting in a corner ,basically .....I might have had pressure on it from the wall,good thing it didnt hurt it ,I just got so much junk ,Im out of room and I need more cabinets to put stuff in ,to unclutter and spread things out,but you know how that goes,I am just suprised reading everyones posts that MR has really messed these Enterprises up with small ,but minor defects,I hope mine stands the test of time,we will see in the future I guess....Guy

 

[Shaw]

Unfortunately for me, I have so very little experience with model building and airbrushing. Not to mention talent. I am now 52, married with teenage kids and I have neither the time nor the means (nor the dedication and drive, really) to dive into serious model-making and hone the skills required to satisfy my expectations; I'm the type of person who can get consumed with a task at hand and my lifestyle as it is simply does not allow anything like that.

I wouldn't discount your abilities to achieve what you want due to lack of experience. With very little experience (and about 14 years without having built any type of model) I decided to attempt to build the Enterprise model I always wanted. And in my case I was pretty sure that there was never going to be a version I could just buy.

Now, granted, I'm not there yet. But I have made a number of encouraging steps towards my goal. The first step was to reverse engineer a set of plans of what I wanted (first draft can be found here), the second step was a rough first study model using those plans (images of that model can be found here), and the third (and most recent) step was a second study model (images of that model can be found here).

While I have a nice representation of the model I always wanted, I'm not to my goal just yet (a one-to-one replica). But I am far more confident in my ability to reach that goal today than I was when I started.

Of course my dream Enterprise model (the original 33 inch model) required me to draw up plans and cross check them against the few existing photos of that model. In your case, if you want a representation of the 11 foot model, there is a lot of information already available (plus the model still exists) for you to work from... so you can skip a bunch of steps I had to go through.

Best of all, it'll be your model... really your model. And that is a neat feeling! :thumbsup

 

[Artman]

Artman, I agree 100%.

I am not a huge collector of a lot of different things. I don't love Star Wars, for example. I just love TOS and I really wanted to concentrate a small, but quality, collection of things ST TOS. The MR E falls short of my desires for the $$$.

Have you been doing any model-making?

And post a couple of pics of your paintings if you don't mind.

Proper,
Yea I’m a big fan of TOS as well. It all started with the AMT model the one with the clear green bridge dome and a battery to light the top and bottom saucer centers up. Don’t remember exactly why it got junked but it did . . . I think the nacelles fell off and my mother tossed my TOS out –chuckle. Anyway, a decade or more later I bought another AMT model (a revised version) that’s when I became aware of the inaccuracies of the model when compared with the 11 foot studio version.

As a portrait artist I’ve used sculpture on occasion to help with reconstructing things so I could get the lighting or features I wanted.

My entrance into the model making world in a more serious way is but a recent occurrence. Building the skills and getting the tools needed to do the job right, I’ve cut my teeth (so to speak) on some model railroading stuff (dioramas really interest me).

As for my professional activity as a portrait artist you can visit my web site http://www.robertwanka.com and take a look at my work there.

Robert W.

 

[feek61]

I wouldn't discount your abilities to achieve what you want due to lack of experience. With very little experience ...

Best of all, it'll be your model... really your model. And that is a neat feeling! :thumbsup

I agree with Shaw on this. I had always wanted an accurate Galileo shuttlecraft; so I decided to build a studio scale version. About half-way through the build I discovered the RPF and it changed my life!! Seriously, the advice, guidance and encouragement I got here made me a much better model maker then I would have ever been and I am quite pleased with the way it turned out. Shaw is right when he says it's a neat feeling. My shuttlecraft sits atop a bookcase and I see it everyday. Still makes me feel good after years

Here is the link to the build (and as you can see I didn't know what I was doing, lol):

http://www.therpf.com/f10/there-has-something-better-tos-shuttlecraft-build-37162/




Good luck!

 

[Proper]

Artman, very impressive work! Clearly you've honed your artistic talents. Love your sculptures, too! I've actually always preferred 3D art over 2D art. I have my BA in Fine Art-Design Option. I loved the figure drawing classes that I took, and I was actually quite good with light and shadow; my instructor suggested I move towards sculpture--which I never seriously did. I drew constantly with pencil as a kid and I had a pretty good sense of the Chiaroscuro. So, I liked to "paint" with monotone oils with a "dry brush" technique that almost imitated charcoal or conté. But I was much less comfortable with full color painting.

Anyway, nowadays, I'm a graphic production artist and photo-finisher for a TV network, working a lot with Photoshop. You gotta love that Photoshop!

I agree with Shaw on this. I had always wanted an accurate Galileo shuttlecraft; so I decided to build a studio scale version. About half-way through the build I discovered the RPF and it changed my life!! Seriously, the advice, guidance and encouragement I got here made me a much better model maker then I would have ever been and I am quite pleased with the way it turned out. Shaw is right when he says it's a neat feeling. My shuttlecraft sits atop a bookcase and I see it everyday. Still makes me feel good after years

Here is the link to the build (and as you can see I didn't know what I was doing, lol):

http://www.therpf.com/f10/there-has-something-better-tos-shuttlecraft-build-37162/

feek, I covet your Galileo!! Looks to me like you knew/know plenty about what you were doing!

I would love to jump into that serious model-building bandwagon. But it would utterly consume my time, energy and $$$...



Regarding the MR E--and at the risk of beating a dead horse all the way to the glue factory--my list of *bothers* on mine, from worst to somewhat less than tolerable:

• slight but too noticeable nacelle droop (both)
• oil in both domes now; with the inevitable "mangy frosting" look
• slight saucer droop
• crooked deflector dish thingie
• various joint gaps--the worst being in the impulse engine area
• scuffs on nacelle dome
• several small paint scuffs on sharp upper saucer edge.
• grey overspray in copper rings of engineering hull
• big gap/light leak at top of hangar door
• inaccuracy at hangar deck floor where it meets the hull

I just can't get over that this thing with these disappointing flaws cost me over $1.5K... :sick

 

[Artman]

feek, I covet your Galileo!! Looks to me like you knew/know plenty about what you were doing!

I would love to jump into that serious model-building bandwagon. But it would utterly consume my time, energy and $$$...



Regarding the MR E--and at the risk of beating a dead horse all the way to the glue factory--my list of *bothers* on mine, from worst to somewhat less than tolerable:

• slight but too noticeable nacelle droop (both)
• oil in both domes now; with the inevitable "mangy frosting" look
• slight saucer droop
• crooked deflector dish thingie
• various joint gaps--the worst being in the impulse engine area
• scuffs on nacelle dome
• several small paint scuffs on sharp upper saucer edge.
• grey overspray in copper rings of engineering hull
• big gap/light leak at top of hangar door
• inaccuracy at hangar deck floor where it meets the hull

I just can't get over that this thing with these disappointing flaws cost me over $1.5K... :sick

Proper,
From what I saw of the photographs you supplied of your ship, those flaws are only just noticeable, if at all. Nevertheless I know how you feel, lord knows I felt the same way about my E. It should be said however, you will get over it, that is to say the sting of any subtle flaws will eventually bother you less . . . or they may lead you to learn how one might remove such flaws. I know you are hesitant to begin such a project but you need not think of it as some kind of time and money sucking enterprise (pun intended). Ease yourself into this stuff, don’t think you have to go nuts and buy all the best tools right away and tie yourself to the work bench burning the midnight oil in an attempt to become the best you can be in an instant. Think of it as a hobby, look at one of those flaws that are really minor and start experimenting (not upon the actual model right away you understand).

Personally I think Shaw, and feek61 are right on the money, the models these guys are building and have built are amazing! Personalized quality control, it doesn’t get any better than that for those of us in where such things really matter.

Robert W.

 

[Jiminydog]

oh lord, the MR-E. Got a love/hate relationship with mine. Took 3 tries/returns to get one that's passable, and haven't had any problems with leaking or mechanics ... but from the day I got it, one nacelle is slightly lower than the other when viewed from head-on. With the vaunted armature and all of that, can't even tell HOW they managed to screw that one up. But I'd used my 3 and it was keep this one or just get a refund. I display it on a high shelf and fortunately you can't see the nacelle difference from the angle you see it from ... but it still annoys me!

 

[Proper]

Proper,
From what I saw of the photographs you supplied of your ship, those flaws are only just noticeable, if at all. Nevertheless I know how you feel, lord knows I felt the same way about my E. It should be said however, you will get over it, that is to say the sting of any subtle flaws will eventually bother you less . . . or they may lead you to learn how one might remove such flaws.

Well, until that day when I can call myself a crackerjack model maker, I am resigned to spending a ton of dough on a "professionally" built model in order to "float my boat." Unfortunately, I can no longer believe that my ton of hard earned dough can buy even a modicum of reasonable [Chinese] quality.

Maybe, Artman, maybe I will get over it, as you say, but more than likely, the sting that I paid what I paid for what I got will always bother me, if only because I know of what could have been but wasn't.

Maybe it would be to my benefit to train myself to such ability as would empower me to "remove such flaws" but I don't recall a proviso on the sale, written or implied, stating this after market necessity.

And really, I don't consider even a slight (1º to 1.5º) nacelle droop 'only just noticeable, if at all.' To me, this is very noticeable. The nacelles are iconic to the E, almost an exclusive symbol of her virility, if you will. What is the most obvious sign of an incapacitated Constitution class vessel? The first thing you notice as you approach is a misaligned nacelle...

OK, I'm being melodramatic, here. But to me an off nacelle is a real "drag." Almost as bothersome are the crooked deflector thingie and the oily domes. The joint gaps by themselves I could learn to tolerate.

I don't believe it is possible to very well correct these important flaws (nacelle droop and dome oil) short of sawing, gutting and rebuilding at the hand of a master "bricklayer," which I'm not...

'I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!'

 

[Artman]

OK, I'm being melodramatic, here. But to me an off nacelle is a real "drag." Almost as bothersome are the crooked deflector thingie and the oily domes. The joint gaps by themselves I could learn to tolerate.

I don't believe it is possible to very well correct these important flaws (nacelle droop and dome oil) short of sawing, gutting and rebuilding at the hand of a master "bricklayer," which I'm not...

'I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!'

Proper,

Yes - :lol, well said. I believe that quote came from "Devil in the Dark", it was one of my favorite TOS episodes.

Lucky for me my third (and final) model of the MR -E came without the issues you are seeing in yours. The things I'm going to tinker with are minor . . . still, should I decide to do something about the blotched nacelle that would entail surgery of a more serious kind. Not ready to do that quite yet.

Something I have noticed now is that the effect is not as benign as I first thought; one can indeed notice a difference in the light bulb "winking" effect. It's less obvious in the intact frosted nacelle and more in your face in the blotched one . . . that could prove to be problematic if the frosting continues to be neutralized.

Robert W

 

[Jiminydog]

One of my first two had the blotched effect right out of the box ... I always wondered if it would be possible to "frost" the nacelle cap from the outside? Via sanding or one of the spray methods ... sent it back rather than risk it myself, but perhaps a more experienced modeller would have the courage?

 

[Proper]

One of my first two had the blotched effect right out of the box ... I always wondered if it would be possible to "frost" the nacelle cap from the outside? Via sanding or one of the spray methods ... sent it back rather than risk it myself, but perhaps a more experienced modeller would have the courage?

Yeah, there was a lot of discussion here: http://www.therpf.com/f10/new-mr-enterprise-problem-over-time-dome-blotching-59849/ as to how one could possibly correct this problem but no one found a solution, to my knowledge.

 

[Proper]

By the way, I contacted Polar Lights and they still don't have any definite plans for a 1:350 TOS. But even when and if they do it would not include a metal armature, at least as of now. I said: "Good luck with that!" I was told my concerns over a spineless E would be passed on to the "design team."

So, anybody out there still interested in a 1:350 E PL kit, contact them and voice your drooping and sagging concerns.

Hopefully this won't turn out to be yet another pipe dream.

 

[feek61]

I heard they would be making a decision soon (currently accessing if the large kit would be feasible) and make an announcement at this years Wonderfest as too if they were going to proceed with the kit.

 

[crackerjazz]

I wonder what's keeping them from going ahead with it when they've already done the Refit which is the more difficult subject.