Captain Robert April wrote:
Or, just upsize the drawings a tad so that the ship clocks in at 947' in length, regardless of what that does to the size of the components. Since that results in greater interior room, I don't see any downside.
Seems like a slippery slope
to me... a little upsizing here, a little rescaling there, next thing you know you've got JJ's Enterprise.
As I said, everyone is free to do whatever they want. But for me, Jefferies' design intent has more weight than almost any other data or idea.
Speculation on my part but how far out of true would the measurements be if the nacelles were only supporting themselves? IOW, would they torque at all under the pull of gravity? Toe in at the caps and toe out on the aft ends? Enough to account for a disparity in measurements? Especially if you were having someone re-measure the ship for you.
Actually, the models are very sturdy. Only the port nacelle of the 11 foot model was out of alignment, and that was due to the additional weight from the inner trench.
The reason the nacelles are significantly different from Jefferies design is that the point where the supports meet the nacelles is quite a bit lower than what most people expect (specially if you've ever built any of the AMT kits).
Something to keep in mind... for many years the 11 foot model was suspended by it's nacelles. So not only where they not being effected by supporting themselves, they were staying true even while supporting much of the rest of the model.
And remember... if the nacelles were rotating due to torque on the supports enough that the measurements would be off by nearly 5 inches, then everything about the nacelles would be tilted too (rather than straight up and down).
It was a significant change from the plans, and was done on both models. But Jefferies never reflected that change in his later drawings.
I do have a theory as to why it was done... but I'll wait until I have some free time to discuss it at length.