posted
It's hard to tell if it does say ELKINS or not, EL NINO though is two separate words, isn't it...? I don't think that's what it says here.
When I look at the saucer module of the Centaur it just constantly reminds me of the front of a Boeing 747! Is there any model kit they didn't cannibalize to make these ships?!
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
Yeah, I guess El Nino is two words... but were talking about people here, who put these MONSTERS together! ;o)
I like the idea of the shuttle bay on the top of the saucer like that on the Centaur... although what was wrong with doing a 'galaxy' type thing and putting it like that but behind the bridge!?! I.e. facing aft.
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:I like the idea of the shuttle bay on the top of the saucer like that on the Centaur... although what was wrong with doing a 'galaxy' type thing and putting it like that but behind the bridge!?! I.e. facing aft.
I don't know...I kind of like it the way it is. True you lose the upper forward phaser bank...but it looks like you pick up the phaser cannons by the nacelles...
posted
Since there's no restrictions on the photos, can someone please post them for quick cross-reference? (And for the benefit of anyone who might just be stopping in, not having any idea what we're talking about...)
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Just wondering has permission been given to view these pictures yet. I wouldn't mind seeing these pics if possible.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I may have misunderstood. Who here has not seen the large photos yet?
Regarding the Elkins (or whatever):
That is so blatantly an F-14, it's silly. I can't belive you can't all see it. It is a complete fuselage, minus nose. No wings, no elevons, no vertical stabilizers. In the top view, just fore of the pylons, you can see the cut-ins for the swing-wings. The long rectangular pieces on top of the intakes are two of the launch rails for the Phoenix missiles. And the exhausts (or navigational deflectors, in this case) are unmistakable.
I know it's easy to mistake for an A-Wing. That's because the A-Wing was orignally made from two F-14 fuselage tops, cut off just aft of the wing roots, and with the central part of the fuselage removed just inboard of the intake scoops. Plus, of course, a new cockpit and other details... But that is a complete F-14 fuselage on the Elkins.
Regarding the Centaur:
I've been slowly building a Centaur-type ship model out of an Enterprise-B and a Reliant, plus the conversion kit. These pictures are very helpful. I've mapped out the windows -- with some modifications to make the layout a bit more symmetrical -- and am in the process of drilling them out. Now that we can see the Reliant bridge is used on this model, I'm making appropriate modifications.
As far as the Excelsior shuttlebay... Well, when I glued it in place I noticed three things: First, the trailing tips must be pinched in to make them lie alongside the superstructure; Second, pinching them in causes the other end to curve down in an arc that exactly matches the curve of the saucer top; Third, when I looked at it from the front, it practically screamed deflector -- not shuttlebay. So I now have every intention of painting the former shuttlebay doors fluorescent blue. The p/s aft flanking boxes will be the shuttlebays as I originally intended -- and as I still believe the boxes on the E-B are. But that's a can of worms I'm not opening.
Regarding the others:
I'm still ambivalent about the Shelly. I'm also beginning to like the three-nacelled Excelsior bash (BTW, the gold bits previously mentioned are the saucer rim of the stock Excelsior saucer painted copper, opposing the grey-painted saucer rim of the Enterprise-B). The Yeager is troubling to me. I like the variable-geometry nacelle pylons, but the mating of those two ships makes my teeth itch... The Constitution variant is nice also, but the paint job is ass, like all of them.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
If that's the bottom-view of the 3nacelled excelsior then maybe there's a name and a registry on the top view. I hope the top-view is one of the 2 missing pictures.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I bet a combination of the paint job and the typical Trek lighting will make the ships look suitably battle-scorched, though. The Constitution-bash looks like a veteran of a century of battles...
The Centaur is a beautiful little ship. How little exactly is up to discussion now: the most identifiable pieces are the Miranda bridge, torp module and phaser cannon, so perhaps the ship should be scaled according to those. In that case the "shuttlebay" should definitely be a deflector, since it's too small to be practical for shuttle ingress/egress. Not all modern warships have helicopter hangars - and not all starships need shuttle hangars, not when there exists this thing called the transporter.
The other ships probably have to be scaled according to their primary hulls. The Intrepid or Constitution hulls leave no room for speculation, and the 3-naceller and Shelley saucers retain the small Excelsior bridges and are otherwise very clearly recognizable as Excelsior offshoots.
BTW, what the heck are those little boxes glued on both sides of the 3-naceller stern? In the original drawing, I thought they were poorly drawn Constitution impulse engines, but clearly they aren't. What purpose could they serve? What prompted the modelmaker to add these dangling bits?
quote: What prompted the modelmaker to add these dangling bits?
Drugs... and lots of them!
Has Mojo seen these pics?? I wonder if he is doing any NICE versions of these monsters for his book!?!
OK, out of these, who reckons that the Centaur and the Connie variant are actually real classes and not 'war time piecemeal concoctions'!?! (I got sick of saying 'kitbash') ;o)
So there are two missing picture eh? So Marge was made of Chimps eh?
Has anyone got a top and side schematic of this 'aeroplane'/'jet' that is now the El****'s (what ever the word I reckon that third letter is an 'n'.) AND is the 'nose' of the jet now the 'deflector' or does this baby have two deflectors!?!
AND is the RQ/C/Shelly saucer connected to the secondary hull via the 'neck' of the Excelsior? "Chicken necks!?!"
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:OK, out of these, who reckons that the Centaur and the Connie variant are actually real classes and not 'war time piecemeal concoctions'!?! (I got sick of saying 'kitbash') ;o)
I've always figured that the Centaur was a "real" starship class, because the Excelsior-style saucer and nacelles are from the same model, and apparently the same scale. Likewise for the Constitution-bash -- maybe this design was a little-seen alternative to the Miranda Class?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Since I just can't believe in the concept of hastily thrown-together starships, ALL of these classes are "real", factory-built, series-production vessels to me. Except when I feel really desperate about getting rid of the ugliest of them...
So the Intrepid/Tomcat/Constitution kitbash could be two ships instead of one - say, the remains of an Intrepid being moved around by a special tugship (would explain why the nacelles are at an angle to the primary hull...). And the 3-naceller and the Raging Queen could have some jetsam temporarily welded onto the hulls for salvage purposes, or be missing major hull parts.
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
There's something wrong with the Medusa sideview. I first didn't notice, but it is obvious: The decals used to create the ships (best example the rearrangement of the Voyager-registry to represent the Yeager) are obviously parts of the model-kits. if so, you have to make them wet to put them onto the kit (I did it several times, I know how it works ). One thing, however, is curious: The Medusa and the Constitution have starfleet insignias on their hulls that seem to be mirrored. Only way to get a mirrored insignia is to turn the decal around. Since the decals only stick on one side, you can't do this easily, and I doubt the guys at the studio just turned them around if they knew they would stick easily if they were added the right way.
What I want to say is the following; I just noticed that while looking at the Constitution and the Medusa, but if the decals are not mirrored, the pictures are. It could have happened while they were saved to the harddrive (I assume they were taken with a digital cam) or when they scanned them. Fact is I believe the Medusa-sideview is upside-down. We have to horizontally mirror it again to get the real image. Same thing with the Constitution-topview (the insignia behind the bridge-dome) and the Medusa-topview, allthough it doesn't make a difference here.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Since someone asked, I'll say for the record that I have not seen the pictures yet And I've been very patiently waiting until the permission dispute is resolved.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). One thing, however, is curious: The Medusa and the Constitution have starfleet insignias on their hulls that seem to be mirrored. Only way to get a mirrored insignia is to turn the decal around. Since the decals only stick on one side, you can't do this easily, and I doubt the guys at the studio just turned them around if they knew they would stick easily if they were added the right way.
Printer-friendly view of this topic