Love, hate and the AMT Enterprise model

[publiusr]

The nacelles didn't just droop. Shaw talks about a fix he is working on. I think the fabricators made the mistake of assuming the nacelles and secondary hulls were cylinders. If that was the case, everything would line up well.

My dad shaved the back of the neck pylon. That lined up the saucer with the nacelles, but the secondary hull pointed down and to the front. I liked that, in that the nav dish could 'scan' below--look-down shoot-down radar style.

Now in case anyone else wants to do a model, here is a suggestion. Break the model up into more pieces.

Now the assemblies consist of trying to join three tubes with two struts--and to me that is a mistake. Not just droop, but toe-in, toe-out issues can be expected.

An idea I had would be to make a triangular one piece bracket.

Now imagine That there is a perfect Enterprise model, and that a laser were to cut it (top to bottom--straight down) in two places--right in front of of where the nacelle support pylons join the nacelles to the secondary hull--and another similar cut just behind.

This would leave a triangular bracket not unlike what I have seen on some engines.

Now imagine if a machine tool were to fabricate this, or you had a one piece mold.

The result would be that the join line at the base of the nacelle supports and where they join the truncated nacelle segments up top would now be parts of the model detail itself. No possibility of droop or mis-alignment.

Then you attach the forward and aft nacelle bits to the each top of the bracket FLAT-to-FLAT.

Same with the secondary hull front and back.

The triangular bracket might even have threads where the parts may screw in.

No more droop.

[scotpens]

^^ If I understand correctly, what you describe is pretty much how the nacelles and struts are engineered on the Polar Lights 1/1000 scale TOS Enterprise kit. The inboard halves of the engine pylons and the section of the secondary hull between them are all molded in a single piece of plastic. The upper ends of the pylons have tabs that lock into slots in the nacelles. If you build it right, the nacelles are aligned and won't droop.

[Forbin]

xvicente wrote:

---

aaaand here they are:


Image0605 por vicentox1999, no Flickr

Here's my attic:


And add to that "one of each" on the on-deck pile in the basement, plus at least one case each of Polar Lights' 1/1000 TOS and Refit. It's... a sickness.

[ZapBrannigan]

Hey Forbin, do you ever worry that summer heat in the attic might warp the plastic?

[Warped9]

publiusr wrote:

---

That is the way the AMT should be viewed--not a representation of Datin's film model (we have the 1/350 for that) but of our memories.

The AMT model was more than just a model. It is different than any other kit in terms of its place in time--and the associations with it.

To me, the AMT was a summer with the old window unit air conditioner running--almost speaking--in its breathy susurrus as chimes on the porch blew in the warm breeze.

It was smell of paper and pencils--as they used to smell. The AMT kit was healthy parents, Apollo on all the television channels that forced everyone else to look up as we already did. And yet Trek was something special, something only a handful seemed meant to enjoy. It gave shelter, but pointed in its mature, responsibly cerebral fashion, towards the future adulthood that awaited us all.

It was never just a model. Those came later in their accuracy, good, but....

Expert modelers amazed us as we were welcomed into the Lodge.

Where the AMT was the warm fire in the hearth, later incarnations were just snuggies.

That's a good way of putting it. I have very fond memories of my first kit in 1970---it really fired my imagination. Even my disappointments with the way the kit was supposed to go together (that stupid pylon setup) didn't dampen my enthusiasm. I built a number of them through the next few years, but none matched the first one for pure joy.

Today I can look at the kit (including the present version) and see what's lacking, but childhood isn't about perfection but rather about perception.

[Forbin]

ZapBrannigan wrote:

---

Hey Forbin, do you ever worry that summer heat in the attic might warp the plastic?

Got no choice, the basement is full too.
They've been up there for at least a decade, and when I pull one out I don't see any warpage, so I guess it's okay. The decals don't always survive, though.

[aridas sofia]

Has anyone ever blueprinted the differences between the later pressings on the AMT kit and those from the 1960s? I know they have been described, but I mean taking two built models and actually showing the differences graphically or in photographic form?

[Redfern]

I don't know about comparing the different "pressings" of the kit, but Shaw did create at least one set of drawings based upon one of the earlier releases, using it to compare with proportions of the 11 foot filming miniature, the 3 foot ship, the FJ blueprints, the MJ diagrams, etc.

Sincerely,

Bill

[Marsden]

My kit was from the 90s, I didn't like how the plain plastic looked so I spray painted it white. My modeling ability isn't very good, but it seemed to hold together ok. The worst problem I had putting it together was getting the upper and lower saucer pieces to fit. I don't remember any particular problems with the warp engines, but if they were a little off, I probably wouldn't have noticed.



I had a TMP Enterprise that had lights that need 'C' batteries.

[TOSalltheway]

I had all the Star Trek model kits in the 1970s. What I remember about the Enterprise kit was two things; the stand was inferior and it would fall easily, and trying to get both nacelles perfectly symetrical was a pain.

On the other hand I had a blast burning the crap out of one and numbering it as the USS Constellation.

[publiusr]

I also remember the big disk firing DINKY. So help me, I remember line drawings for a TMP version that I never saw hit the shelves.