Voyager Build

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's my list so far. These issues are on both versions (original and also the "Deluxe" versions)

Two major issues –
1) The bridge deck is twice as tall as it should be.
2) The upper portion of the spine, behind the bridge deck, are greatly out of proportion. The sensor palette is too far forward by 1/8” and it should be moved back that far. The airlock deck area is about 3/16 too long, and located 3/32” too far forward on the kit. The aft torpedo launcher is about 1/8” too short. The bottom edge is located perfectly, but the shortness makes it overly “squished.” The result was that the kit part has the torpedo launchers the wrong shape, and they angle up and out, and they left out the undercut, either for ease of molding or from the “squish” problem.

Moderate Issues –
1) The deflector dish base is vertically centered, while on the studio model, the vertical center of the concave curvature is slightly higher than true center. The emitter face is also shaped wrong. And needs to be replaced.
2) The forward torpedo launchers are the wrong shape.
3) The aux deflector emitter face is too thick, and should have a more prominent stem, along with tech details on the shaft.
4) 4 lifeboat hatches are missing on the saucer top back where it blends into the secondary hull, two on each side, approx. aligned with the aft spine airlock.

Minor issues -
Pretty much every nav beacon is left out on the kit. There are 3 per nacelle, on the aft top and bottom halves (red/green), and then a warm white blinker on the front end top centered and about 1/16” aft of the first raised “step on the top half. 0.5 mm Fiber Optic would replicate them nicely. 6 on the fan tail near the phaser strips, center white, the others colored. The bridge strobe is actually in front of the bridge deck, in front of the step down centered between the square panels arc and the front edge of the B deck.

On the top of the impulse engines, inside the horseshoe there’s a raised dot, just slightly smaller than the inside diameter of the horseshoe. The front edge of each end of the horseshoe should be sloped for about the forward 3/32”. Then all the other edges of the horseshoe should be eased over a little; they are too sharp.

The B deck is missing windows and also missing the half round strips.

The fantail detail on the bottom should be recessed scripes, not raised scribes.

Shuttlebay door is about 3/32” too wide, corners should be more rounded on the top, and the door should be recessed into the wall face, not raised on it.

Raised emitter face forward of the spine sensor palette is shaped wrong.

All Phaser strips missing ridges.


I'm planning on making a set of replacements for the bridge, the upper half of the spine (which would still use the kit sensor palette), and the deflector. Along with replacement parts for some of the more minor things like the bussard vents on the sides of the nacelles (just cut them out, pop in new ones instead of trying to line up the two halves perfectly) and other bits here and there.
 
Yep that was my thought and why I'm stopping dead in my tracks until these things are some what resolved.

Thanks Rob for the post. Big help!

Steve

And don't even get any ideas about me doing a new one from scratch. I have to finish the Big E or die trying. ;) But maybe REL might....
 
Its really not THAT bad, not as bad as some of the AMT kits. The general proportions are all okay, yeah they miffed it on the windows on the original tooling, but they fixed it for the deluxe, and the deflector issue is rivet counting since when its all built and lit its still passable, its not something that immediately jumps out at you. Even the bridge deck height isn't something I noticed until comparing the kit to the reference photos, and then its like OMG that is huge compared to the side orthos of the studio model. The problems with the spine even aren't as bad as some of the AMT Trek Kit issues, especially when you consider they didn't have CGI to work with for tooling back then. When you build the kit OOB, most people wont even notice those issues, but I'm a perfectionist, and that is why 90% of the kits I start dont make it to the display shelf. Or if they do, its a temporary stay until I get another kit and redo it with new techniques and materials.
 
I was a little surprised by the decision to full stop here...
almost as much as I was surprised that my offered kit was not even acknowledged.
Good luck with the build Steve.
 
Mutant I completely over looked that in my many posts and emails. Please except my apologies. I have decided to move forward again and close is close enough. but I have a build to finish this weekend and I'm also back to the Big Enterprise. I'll start filing windows this week.

Again thanks for the kind offer mutant it's most appreciated.

Steve
 
Well thanks Steve.
I look forward to seeing this build of yours and then getting my kit off the shelf and trying to do it some justice by following your example.
 
Perhaps it's because Voyager was actually the first Trek I really got into... but I always did love the look of that ship :)
 
Sorry guys but I have been a little busy on this. I will get to it though.

P1050988.jpg
 
Steve. As much as I love that TOS E, the main problem with it is the size...It makes it so hard to run around with going "WHOOOOOOOOOOOOSH WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!"
 
I built one of those Voyager kits many years ago. Personally, the minor detail issues didn't bother me all that much as it looked like a Voyager when done. Get the paintjob proper on it and that will go quite a way towards glossing over some other issues on it. Lighting it will make up for the lack of nav lights.

The only thing I corrected were the window dividers (Monogram did the saucer windows as rectangles instead of slits on this version, they corrected the problem on the SE version). For my build, I used segments of decal film to fix it. But of course I wasn't lighting it either. Still, I figure if you go the clear resin route to fill the window holes, the slit dividers could be masked and painted on in the paint phase.

BTW, you mentioned an RC BP Defiant, which I believe was the plane you had sitting next to the kit box in one of your pictures. I am curious how the test flight went (I assume it was electric, given its size). I love the Bouton Paul Defiant. It was a concept that was obsolete in the 1920s (turret fighter) when the RAF drew up the requirement for it in 1935-36 and the planes were Bf-109 fodder when they flew, but the plane does look cool in its own way. They've always been a favorite of mine.
 
Believe it or not I've been so busy I haven't had time to get to my field. I have the Defiant, Ford Trimotor, P-51, and a MIG15 to test fly. Hoping in the next two weeks.

Steve
 
Steve, that's an absolutely beautiful build! I could stare at that for hours. It's so good that as I look at it I hear music from the show. First class job, bud.

Cheers,

Guy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top