Looking at the filming model, I note that the front of the nacelle is actually out beside the little phaser canard on the model, and that the model nacelles end a foot or two before the end of the fuselage.
On the DS9TM 4-view, however, the forward portion of the nacelle doesn't quite make it to the canard (nor even all the way past the ribbed section), and the aftmost part of the nacelle is almost even with the aftmost part of the fuselage.
(Another shot of the filming model at an angle is available at EAS (at the second link).)
In other words, the DS9TM images show the nacelles kicked back a foot or two.
Weird.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
The DS9 TM got many a-thing wrong.
I've always loved that little ship though.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I agree on both counts. At first I was a little iffy on the Runabout, since I always remembered the statement about "aesthetics surpassing technology" from the time of TNG's first season (noted in the Starlog STTNG Magazine), which is nonsense but remains how I always think of the "Starfleet Clean" look.
Thus, the greeblies and exposed-looking bits and straps and such seemed a little retarded . . . I suppose I would've expected something a little more like the Type-7 or Type-6 in appearance . . . nice and "Starfleet Clean" in design.
And actually, the straps still do seem a little retarded. But nonetheless, the vessel as a whole has grown into a personal favorite, right alongside the Type-7.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
You're right. I never noticed that.
And I think the runabout has just the right amount of greeblies.
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
A canon explanation may be that different nacelle types were used on various Runabouts...
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Why would we need that explanation, unless the canon CGI (or "CGIs" given the mini-runabii in the credits) differed from the model?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Yeah, it's a minor inaccuracy on a simple illustration, not really worth worrying about.