posted
DD provided for the Connie variant both a top view picture and side view picture. Two nacelles (not one)...like I expected, but not like I expected? That make sense?
Someone else on the forum may be right...it does look like a F14 body instead of an A-Wing body (on the Intrepid/Connie variant)?
Later! Art
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: So to just summarise what pictures are new
The Intrepid/A-wing (Int/Connie from DS9TM) The Yeager (Intrepid/Maquis combo) The Raging Queen (poss. the same as the shelly/curry) The Centaur The weird double Excelsior saucer/three naceller
so... no "Connie with 1? Nacelle", ?Klingon? (hey it LOOKS Klingon to me) Tug?
[ March 12, 2002, 08:49: Message edited by: NeghVar ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
[ March 12, 2002, 08:59: Message edited by: Spike ]
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Could be the bottom view, yes... But if that's the case, the model's upside down in the side view, since the ribbon is clearly hanging down... But the DS9TM shows the model with the Excelsior pylons down, so that was probably considered the right way during construction.
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
I'm quite sure I've seen that constitution-design before. Hmmm...
About the Centaur/Genesis/whatever: Since the registry clearly says 42043, the registry of the Centaur, and the ship is the filming miniature of the Centaur, I think we should live with the fact that it simply says Centaur, nothing else. Just to avoid headache...
Can we be sure the Shelley is the one seen in the foreground of 'A Time to Stand'? I mean they don't change the nacelles without a reason. What if there's another, larger version of that model?
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Can we be sure the Shelley is the one seen in the foreground of 'A Time to Stand'? I mean they don't change the nacelles without a reason. What if there's another, larger version of that model?
Don't think there is a different/larger model. The damage patterns look right to me...when compared to ATtS (crappy scans on my end though). For grins, anyone got a good/high quality pic of the Shelley to compare the "Raging Queen" with?
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Just had an idea. What if the Curry's/Queen's nacelles are variable geometry warpfield nacelles just like Intrepid's? Maybe the ship turns them 90� to create the warpfield and later turns them beck to a normal position when it is at impulse?
(And the Curry/Queen-naming problem can be solved if we say there were two of them, the Curry in the foreground, what Okuda said, and the Raging Queen in the background, visible at my picture. Can anyone proof that the foreground ship was not the Curry? )
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
On close inspection the 'Raging Queen' on the Curry hull does not appear to be in the regular Starfleet font at all, in stark contrast to the registry below it. So I agree with the comment that it was possibly quickly stuck on.
Although these ships look pretty beat up, I'm glad the photo quality is as good as it is. Good enough to analyse the name printed on the Centaur saucer. I've come up with:
USS ***EATS.
The first three letters look like FIR or FIK. If it is, I've got no idea what FIKEATS is...
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
Gary Hutzel ought to know a lot more about how these models were built and filmed -- after all, all Drexler did was take photos, and maybe look at the models for a while. David Stipes would also know a thing or two, although he's primarily the CGI guy. But we ought to wait until the list of questions is complete.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Could be the bottom view, yes... But if that's the case, the model's upside down in the side view, since the ribbon is clearly hanging down... But the DS9TM shows the model with the Excelsior pylons down, so that was probably considered the right way during construction.
But they film a lot of the models upside down in Motion Control Photography... I've seen one of those "Effects" shows were they show the Runabouts being filmed... they're upside down... Smaller models might be shot upside down.
Also, reguards the Raging Queen... those nacelles are HUMUNGOUS compared to the exxie saucer... could they be a sort of 'pre-excelsior' excelsior length nacelle - but still in the style of the Connie refit?
ALSO reguarding the Ragin Queen name/font etc. It could be a 'crew' thing... naming it themselves - doing a sort of 'HMS Bounty' like McCoy dubbed the Klingon Scout in TVH. Someone on board might have a few existing copies of Saturday Night Live!
Also, what are the nacelle pylons made out of on some of these... like the Connie variant? (This I think is a real class... it looks more 'normal' - i.e. components sticking within it's own class) or the strange 'thin' pylons on the RQ?
ANNNND, which is the E-B saucer in the pic of the 3-N-Exxie? top or bottom according to the pic.
AND, the two connie nacelles coming down is a nice touch - instead of just one nacelle, I think this might point to the fact that there are two 'conduits' - you know what I mean, from the warp core) going down each pylon and feeding into the one nacelle... could this mean that there are two sets of coils (smaller versions) within the same nacelle housing? Or is it like that Blue car with the three wheels in Mr. Bean!?! ;o)
Oh, and anyone notice that the 3-N-Exxie, saucers aren't 'flush' together, but are separated by that metallic/copper looking arrangement? Large Scale Sensors? Big Arsed Phasers?
ONE MORE OBSERVATION - on the 'roof' of the saucer of the connie-variant, did anyone notice the additional 'squares' the coppery one to the aft looks like a Transporter emitter. What are those 'red squares' though? Phaser turrets? Escape Pods?
OK, off to look at the rest.
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
My big comment here is with the paint schemes of the various models - they range from ugly to just plain bad, even in the harsh/flash lighting. These ships were obviously part of the Rainbow Fleet.
As for the Raging Queen, my guess is that this particular Shelley-class ship is one which has gone into civilian service, possibly as a freighter. We have no idea what the fleet the Defiant was part of at the beginning of the episode was actually *doing*... Perhaps a convoy that was ambushed, or which had to be resuced. Granted the ships were probably *meant* to be combatants, but the evidence seems to be mounting to the contrary.
All those greeblies!?! on top - a product of having to 'kitbash' in Starfleet? Exposed due to battle? Or maybe an extreme Sensor starship?
That name is hard to work out... I think the last two letters maybe an T and an S? Can I spin again!?! *TOP DOLLAR!*
Oh, should we take note of the warp 'grills' - they seem to be red, and the RQ has yellow, but I guess as we've seen on the actual episode the glow is still blue.
The Elkins
I STILL CAN'T make heads or tails of that A-Wing... where is that picture of one again?
And WHAT is that triangular thing at the back on top, with the three red stripes!?! And is that a deflector or just something under the saucer... Could be a 'weapon pod' of some sort? I can't see this being the connie part... I'd say the only connie part is the nacelles.
What is the registry on the nacelles? 74121? 74131?
HANG ON That doesn't say ELKINS!!!! It says El Nino!!!!!!! Or at least ELNIN*
I don't mind the 'fanned out' secondary hull section - balances the saucer up.
Some panels are painted yellow/gold while others are blue/green.
The Yeager:
What a cruel irony, the two types of ships that were pulled to the DQ - together... as one! ;o)
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
NeghVar, you're right about the F-14/Elkins connection. From the parts breakdown and the apparent scaling, I'd say that's a Monogram 1/48 scale F-14A upper spine/cockpit area grafted atop the A-Wing and facing rearward. Butt ugly, too, I do say so. I'm holding one right now and its a spot on match, sizewise, although the little antenna and bumps under what would be the F-14's glove vane makes me wonder if someone didn't sacrifice a Hasegawa F-14D. Oh please, no! Those are too sweet to chop up! I wonder what the rear of the Elkins looks like? Did they fill in the aft secondary hull?
Robert
-------------------- Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic