...Well, maybe not that many, but certainly a few. I'm referring to the Niagara-class. (And now I can tell what you're all thinking: "Oh good, he's brought up Wolf 359 again!" )
In recently speaking with Bernd and going through both his and Masaki Taniko's pages dedicated to this ship and looking at all the pictures of the model that we now posess, it is clear that rather than being LESS fucked up in proportion than the original Fact Files schematics suggested, the true appearance of the ship is in fact even MORE bizarre. The nacelles, having been taken from the 4-foot Galaxy model, positively dwarf the Ambassador hull and modified 2-foot Galaxy saucer.
To illustrate, Here are several images that Masaki did, showing possible details of the ship's configuration. (There are many variant designs because we'll never "really" know what the shuttlebay area looked like since the whole ass end was blown off of the model, and since we've never seen a good side view we don't know just how much neck the ship actually had.)
Isn't she PRETTY?
Which is the "true" face of this vessel? Options A and B appear to be the most accurate, depending upon how much "neck" the ship has. Of all the possible aft configurations, this one seems most likely because the hull was taken from an Ambassador.
Just thought this might interest somebody, as the truly correct proportions still haven't been widely published. (Bernd hasn't even shown the ship like this on his site---I assume this is because IT'S TOO DAMN UGLY!)
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Actually, after about ten minutes of staring at these, it's starting to look a little more tolerable. I wonder if someone might undertake to draw a top and front view, so we can see a little better...
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
{Looks}
{Looks again}
{Stares for several minutes}
Eh, sorry Mim, but I'm reading a negative on the "tolerable" status.
Yucch.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Crap. Somebody on ebay sells a great wood model of the Niagra, but of course, it is'nt currently listed. I have the pic if anybody can host it. I even thoought of adding one of these beasts to my fleet after seeing the wooden model......I do like the ship's saucer.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Need to upload an image, zip file, or text / HTML document? Check out Flare Upload!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
One thing I will never understand is why everyone still sees a fin as the lower nacelle pylon, when the pictures clearly show a much thicker, wider, rounded piece, reminiscent of the Buran's submarine conning tower pylon, only upside-down.
Also, from looking at the photos, it seems that the lower nacelle is more forward than the upper two nacelles. Is anyone else seeing any of this, or is it just me?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I agree with Dukhat... I think that nacelle is a little bit offset from the two upper ones. It might actually *help* to make the ship look slightly more "balanced," too -- IMO.
The Niagra has never been my favorite ship, but as some of the details have been discovered I've started to like it a bit more... in a weird sort of way, the oversized engineering hull actually looks interesting to me.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I too see a large stump holding the lower nacelle in place, rather than the depicted fin.
Also, from the DVD images, there's a shot that shows the back of the ship. The saucer appears to be in direct contact with the secondary hull, which means there's no impulse engine in the usual location. It also means I can't find an impulse engine on the Niagara Class at all!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Have we seen this rear pic? It doesn't sound familiar. Could you do a cap?
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I still see a lower pylon just like the upper ones. However, it seems we have to question most of our previous findings.
1. The saucer is (unfortunately) half as large as it should be relative to the nacelles. There is only one explanation: The saucer is from the 2ft Enterprise-D model, the nacelles are from the 4ft model.
2. The lower nacelle seems to be slightly moved forward indeed.
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: One thing I will never understand is why everyone still sees a fin as the lower nacelle pylon, when the pictures clearly show a much thicker, wider, rounded piece, reminiscent of the Buran's submarine conning tower pylon, only upside-down.
Also, from looking at the photos, it seems that the lower nacelle is more forward than the upper two nacelles. Is anyone else seeing any of this, or is it just me?
To my knowledge, this is the only image which shows anything of the lower pylon, and it doesn't look especially thick to me. Masaki seems to have it shaped fairly properly.
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Bernd posted just as I did.
I have to disagree with his interpretation of the shuttlebay area and secondary hull, though. The only reason it seems so short is because it was torn off. Since the hull is that of an Ambassador, I find it logical to assume that before the area was damaged, the structure was the same as the Ambassador's. (This is, after all, exactly what happened with the actual model.) And I doubt Jein would have troubled to "round out" the bottom of the hull rather than just leave it as it was.
-MMoM Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Wow... that ship is really starting to grow on me... Take off the third nacelle on that wooden model and you have a perfectly good looking ship... amazing!
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Well, if the aft end was simply blown away, we don't need to assume that the shuttlebay is the same as on the Ambassador. A good reason to assume a longer tail is so that the pylons don't run thorugh the shuttlebay.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
This is from Bernd's site. It appears as though the back of the saucer is sitting directly against the hull:
If you look at the reverse-color photo on the right, the aft end of the lower pylon appears fairly thin, but the front of this pylon is remarkably thicker:
Could the lower pylon actually be about half of a reversed Ambassador neck?? Looks like the right shape, where it melds with the raised detail from the warp nacelle. The neck ribs could potentially be there, but the quality of the photo is not good.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: This is from Bernd's site. It appears as though the back of the saucer is sitting directly against the hull:
That looks like there's a wide, short neck connecting the saucer to the engineering hull across the entire saucer rim. (Thus, it would be an upside-down U shape.)
None of the pics from the first post show that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
If you just lose that third nacelle and give it Ambassador styled nacelles it looks really keen. (and we've really never seen anything from the Ambassador's imeadiate time frame that I've seen) Mabye the NIagra and Princton were testbeds for new technology and don'r represent a larger class of ships.....the Niagra may have only two nacelles! One can only hope. (the ST Magazine article on the Niagra was sure no help)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bernd: Well, if the aft end was simply blown away, we don't need to assume that the shuttlebay is the same as on the Ambassador. A good reason to assume a longer tail is so that the pylons don't run thorugh the shuttlebay.
But the longer tail *is* the Ambassador's. You've postulated a shorter aft end in your proposed version.
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
And just what the hell is people's problem with three nacelles? If they weren't so frickin' huge compared to the rest of the ship, I think the two above + one below layout makes for a nice balanced look.
I attribute it to psychological conditioning brought about by years of listening to Roddenberry's bullshit anti-Franz Joseph propaganda about only having even numbers of nacelles.
-MMoM Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I haven't been fond of most fan concepts of three-nacelled ships, but I do think that the canon ones we've seen on screen look pretty decent. (Oh, and FJ's Federation-class, too. Despite the weirdness of one of the nacelles mounted on the saucer, I do like it.)
The current diagrams we've seen on the Niagra don't do the ship justice, IMO. I remember that Mark R. did a model of the ship a while back -- even though it had to do a little extrapolation, I think it looks great.
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
Actually, I am quite fond of the triple nacelled starships when they are arranged the correct way. FJ Federation Class Dreadnaught is one of my favorates as well as the Enterprise from " All Good Things ". The Niagara is another story, the nacelles should be reversed with one on top, preferably the saucer and two on the secondary hull. This would stay consistant with the Federation Class Dreadnought as well as the Enterprise from AGT. It would also be more balanced versuses the way shown on the Niagara.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sarvek: Actually, I am quite fond of the triple nacelled starships when they are arranged the correct way. FJ Federation Class Dreadnaught is one of my favorates as well as the Enterprise from " All Good Things ". The Niagara is another story, the nacelles should be reversed with one on top, preferably the saucer and two on the secondary hull. This would stay consistant with the Federation Class Dreadnought as well as the Enterprise from AGT. It would also be more balanced versuses the way shown on the Niagara.
Respectfully, I disagree. I think the spreading out of the nacelles into the planes both above and below the main hull is much better than having all three in one position, above or below.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)