I've been thinking about doing a kitbash of my Enterprise-A model that I built a couple of years ago. The instructions were horrible and the parts even worse, and the whole thing looks like crap. Mainly because the joints weren't glued together at the proper angles.
Anyway, I was thinking of converting the model into that kitbash which we saw in the DS9 Tech Manual. But since there's only a side view, there's not too much other information that I've seen.
I've cobbled together a little three-view image of what I think it would look like, but I would appreciate comments and alternate configurations.
[ June 05, 2001: Message edited by: MinutiaeMan ]
Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
Isn't that a one-nacelled ship...i'm not sure, but that's the impression i was under.
Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :
Well a one-nacelled ship would violate the Roddenberry Odd/Even Nacelle Number Commandment. GASP! So, a two nacelled version would be more in keeping with the "established" rules of ship design. And it could be done so it wouldn't be in conflict with the starboard elevation given in the DS9:TM.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The specs for that design say it's a two-nacelle design. Of course, they also call it a light cruiser with 11 Type-X phasers, 4 torpedo launchers, and a top speed of warp 9.75. And the dimensions are way off, too.
But I figure I'll go with two nacelles, either in the arrangement above, or just attach them directly to the bottom of the neck, similar to the Saladin/Hermes arrangement of the TOS:TM (only with two nacelles instead of one.)
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
this design works!!!!!
never thought the kitbash would look like that
Posted by Fructose (Member # 309) on :
I already made one. It's in 1/2500 scale, and it's a little different, here it is.
I made it a while ago.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
A starship with 11 Type-X phasers and 4 torpedo launchers is called a light cruiser? Well bugger me! (not literally!) If that's a light cruiser, what the hell would a heavy or even a medium cruiser be like? Something like;
Medium - 21 phasers & 6 launchers? Heavy - 40 phasers & 9 launchers?
Talk about kickin' ass!
Me thinks someone in Paramount screwed up (again)!
Those models are seriously cool Fructose. The Belknap reminds me of the USS Challenger shown on the cover of one of the Star Trek: New Earth books.
Oh and a ship can have one nacelle, proviced it has two warp coils in it - or something along those lines - after all the futuristic Enterprise-D had three nacelles and they have to be in even numbers - 3*2 coils = 6, and Constellations have 4. Just a thought, I could be wrong
[ June 06, 2001: Message edited by: akb1979 ]
Posted by Fructose (Member # 309) on :
Thanks. I got the Belknap idea from a book that was put out a while ago, way before the New Earth books came out. But now that you mention it, they do look kinda alike.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
MinutiaeMan, you design definetly works for me!! All this time I hated that constitution kitbash but if your 3 view pictures are anywhere near being accurate to what the ship actually looks like, this would become one of my favorite TMP era ships!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Yes, the design does look more appealing when it's put in 3-D. I'm thinking of ordering some custom decals to label it differently -- I've never done a kitbash like this before.
I also did some 3-view images of the other ships, too. Here are a couple of them, showing the "worst" of the group:
"Griffin" Class:
"Medusa" Class:
The surprising thing is, the "Medusa" actually looks almost good in that image-- in a horrible sort of way. You know what I mean?
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
The Medusa class looks like it has a little periscope sticking out the top of it! It actually does look almost good when those other views are considered. The Griffin class, though, good lord, someone blow that ship up! The side view is so-so and the top view looks pretty nice. But from the front, that ships looks like a pregnant bug.
Are you planning on building models of these as well?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The front view of the Griffin may not be too accurate. I started with the top view and attached properly-scaled Danube pylons, then the nacelles. After that I spaced the pylons on the front view as they would match the top view. And all I did with the secondary hull was shape it to fill in the space in between. (I know the graphic looks pitiful, but the sad thing is that it kinda fits the front section of the side view.)
No, I don't plan on building the others as models. ...Well, maybe the Medusa sometime if I get enough parts. Right now I have the Enterprise-B and the Excelsior. The Excelsior model I have is old and "expendible" (i.e. kitbash-able), but the Enterprise-B is not. I'd need to buy another model kit for that. And I have other models that are higher on my "to buy" list.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Mintie (ha!): I've an old Excelsior sitting in parts. It's the first one I ever built just to see it & try it. It's horridly out of scale for me. It's fully intact sans the backplate for the neck & I'll trade you for it if y'want...got any 1/2500 stuff laying around?
Also, you might want to built 2 of the "Medusas;" most of the concepts I've seen have 2 nacelles up top & 1 below, although to be fair, I though of your arrangement first & always until I'd seen the other.
[ June 06, 2001: Message edited by: Shik ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The Intrepid kitbash looks ugly, but somewhat reasonable. The Excelsior one, though... It looks fine from the top, but every other view is horrible...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Shik: I don't have any 1/2500 models except for my DS9 model, and I don't want to trade that.
The only thing I really have to trade is an 18" Enterprise that I helped my younger sister do a number of years ago. It looks fairly decent, but the decals have yellowed and some of the glue lines aren't perfect. It's probably ideal for kitbashing if you can use it.
I've seen those images of the two-on-top Medusas, and frankly I think I'm the right one here.
Here's why: Take a look at the lower nacelle pylon on the DS9:TM image -- it's pretty identical to the normal Excelsior pylon, all the way up to where the corner would be. To me, that says that they took the entire pylon assembly and stuck it onto the bottom of the saucer there.
Of course, it's not a good idea to rely on the DS9:TM for the precision of its images, but in this case, I might as well use that as the authoritative reference, since that's the only place I've found it.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Minutiae: I think your version of the Medusa looks pretty good, and I agree with your placement of the lower two nacelles. Here's my question, though: Using your logic, it seems that the upper Constitution pylon is swayed exactly as it would appear on a Constitution class ship. Therefore, shouldn't the pylon be veered off to the left in the front view? (admittedly, this would make the ship look ultra-stupid)
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
Yes, but if there were two upper nacelles instead of just one, then it would look ok. Don't ya think? As for the Intrepid/Constitution ship, wouldn't the secondary hull simply be the old round one and not a squished one? Also, why use one from the TOS and not the movie version. You have to admit that the latter would look far better.
It's in 1/2500 scale, and it's a little different, here it is.
