^^ Could you clarify why you consider 1067ft. ideal as opposed to 1080ft? I know it's only a difference of 13ft. but what was the determining factor rather than just take as much space as you can get to cram all the stuff in there?
I downsized a bit to make the bridge match up slightly better and to make the various decks line up slightly better with the local window locations.
Either can work, but based upon my efforts to make sets (or in the case of the bridge, McMaster's prints) match up with the various external drawing sets, I just ended up tweaking it up and down slightly until I converged on a "best fit."
Truthfully, I didn't even pay attention to length when I was doing this. I just tweaked the image scales up and down. Once I had everything lining up nicely, I created datum planes which represented the leading, trailing, pore and starboard edges of the primary hull, created datum planes representing the primary hull decklines, and representing the centerlines of the nacelles and secondary hull. (I actually ended up very slightly adjusting the secondary hull centerline later once I recognized that the axis of the secondary hull is at the exact convergence of the nacelle pylons by design... a key reason I decided to do the "pylons through" approach.)
It was only once I had the full thing worked out that I measured the distance from the nacelle trailing-edge datum plane to the saucer leading-edge datum plane. I had not measured this... at all... prior to that. The reason was that I didn't want preconceptions to guide my work. My entire purpose was to make the sets we know fit into the hull we know.
I actually expected the final number to be closer to 1080'. But that's not the number I arrived at, and I'm not going to try to "drive my results to meet my expectations." That's the sort of thing that bad scientists and bad engineers do.
I let the process give me my results, not vice-versa, in other words. Make sense?