Size of the K'Tinga-class

[Cary L. Brown]

I have hard time accepting that K'tinga and D7 would even be different classes, instead of minor variations within a sinle class, let alone that they would be different sizes. Original Connie and the Refit are more dissimilar than TOS and movie era Klingon cruisers. I think that it is just a single class, Klingon name being K'tinga and Federation designation D7.

If you scale them to the same size though, the proportions of various sections are quite different between them, much in the same manner they are between the TMP Enterprise and the TOS Connie.

Exactly true...

It's really unreasonable to treat the "refit" and the "TOS" ship as "the same ship" in any PRACTICAL sense. (I suspect that a few components were left "original" during the total-reconstruction, just to avoid being in total violation of some diplomatic agreement.) They are, in every meaningful way, two completely different vessels.

The same applies to the D-7A and D-7M classes. They "look the same" and I'm sure that some fairly irrelevant components were kept the same in the secondary crew messhall worm-and-lung-refrigeration unit. But it's really a totally new ship, with totally new capabilities.

I see the TOS ship, the D-7A, and the TOS ship, the Constitution-class, as a special case, where there was some sort of treaty between the Klingons and the Federation limiting the number of "new hulls" which could be constructed in any timeframe... and I see the D-7M and "Constitution refit" designs as being parallel "sneaky" ways to get around that treaty.

That's the only way it makes any sense to me. They're too different, in terms of size, proportion, installed hardware, internal arrangement, and capabilities to be seen as "the same" if you're trying to treat this as a "real" universe.

 

[Longinus]

That's the only way it makes any sense to me. They're too different, in terms of size, proportion, installed hardware, internal arrangement, and capabilities to be seen as "the same" if you're trying to treat this as a "real" universe.

Nonsense. Today there are WWII ships still in use, most refitted beyond recognition. Refits and upgrades such as these are much more realistic than classes such as Exelsior or Miranda remaining in service a century, looking completely same the whole time. That is unrealistic.

 

[RobertScorpio]

That's the only way it makes any sense to me. They're too different, in terms of size, proportion, installed hardware, internal arrangement, and capabilities to be seen as "the same" if you're trying to treat this as a "real" universe.

Nonsense. Today there are WWII ships still in use, most refitted beyond recognition. Refits and upgrades such as these are much more realistic than classes such as Exelsior or Miranda remaining in service a century, looking completely same the whole time. That is unrealistic.

I agree. I was lucky to go aboard the IOWA and yes, there were new decks, new electronics, even new heads. I like the feeling of walking on a ship had such a gread pedigree and history..

Rob

 

[goose814]

I meant that TOS and movie Klingon cruisers would be about the same size, as original Connie is about the same size than the refit. Goose's comparison pic shows K'tinga nad D7 as vastly different sizes. K'tinga is a D7 refit.

I also always thought the K'tinga was just a refiited D7. So I wanted to compare the two together and used the primary hull edge as a common basis based on the fact that it is 2 decks thick on both ships. When I scaled them both to that same dimension they came out quite a bit different in size.

In this comparison, they are both the same overall length:

Comparison5 by goose81465, on Flickr

At this size the primary hull edge of the D7 is about 2.5 decks thick. However at this size it is quite a bit larger compared to the TOS Enterprise comparison.

 

[goose814]

Here are a couple of other images:

02 by goose81465, on Flickr

P51_9_KlingonBC2 by goose81465, on Flickr

The first image is from a "Klingon Battle Cruiser Technical Folder" I purchased from Lincoln Enterprises back in the early '80's. It gives an overall length of 710 ft. The second image I found from this site:

http://startrekpropauthority.blogspot.com/

This is a drawing done by Matt Jefferies and shows an overall length of 624 ft.
This site has a lot of info and photos I haven't seen anywhere else. Definately worth checking out.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

That's the only way it makes any sense to me. They're too different, in terms of size, proportion, installed hardware, internal arrangement, and capabilities to be seen as "the same" if you're trying to treat this as a "real" universe.

Nonsense. Today there are WWII ships still in use, most refitted beyond recognition. Refits and upgrades such as these are much more realistic than classes such as Exelsior or Miranda remaining in service a century, looking completely same the whole time. That is unrealistic.

I agree. I was lucky to go aboard the IOWA and yes, there were new decks, new electronics, even new heads. I like the feeling of walking on a ship had such a gread pedigree and history..

Rob

Yeah, Rob, but that's not the sort of thing we're talking about.

It's not "nonsense," Longinus. Sure, you can swap out the details, even replace some of the internal deck structure... and easily replace non-load-bearing superstructure. What's would be "nonsense" would be claiming that you could take a few office suites that were once in the "twin towers" and put them into some other building and call that building "the twin towers."

The Iowa, no matter now much "detail" had been altered, retained the same structure, and in particular the same KEEL, as she always had.

You can replace all the "bits in between" but you can't rip out and "replace" the skeleton of the ship.

THAT is what we'd be talking about, between the TOS and TMP Enterprise, and between the TOS and TMP Klingon battlecruisers.

 

[Longinus]

You can replace all the "bits in between" but you can't rip out and "replace" the skeleton of the ship.

THAT is what we'd be talking about, between the TOS and TMP Enterprise, and between the TOS and TMP Klingon battlecruisers.

"Skeleton" of the ship certainly can remain same in both cases. Especially in the case of the Klingon battlecruiser the changes are superficial. Though I agree that the Connie refit is rather extensive one.

 

[Wingsley]

That's the only way it makes any sense to me. They're too different, in terms of size, proportion, installed hardware, internal arrangement, and capabilities to be seen as "the same" if you're trying to treat this as a "real" universe.

Nonsense. Today there are WWII ships still in use, most refitted beyond recognition. Refits and upgrades such as these are much more realistic than classes such as Exelsior or Miranda remaining in service a century, looking completely same the whole time. That is unrealistic.

Who says the refit ships are exactly the same?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

You can replace all the "bits in between" but you can't rip out and "replace" the skeleton of the ship.

THAT is what we'd be talking about, between the TOS and TMP Enterprise, and between the TOS and TMP Klingon battlecruisers.

"Skeleton" of the ship certainly can remain same in both cases. Especially in the case of the Klingon battlecruiser the changes are superficial. Though I agree that the Connie refit is rather extensive one.

That's where we disagree. The "skeleton" of the ship in each case is going to be significantly different.

The two "skeletons" may have a similar general arrangement... sort of like how a chimapazee and a human may have a similar arrangement... but they're different enough that the parts aren't really interchangeable at all.

"Similar arrangment" is certainly the case between TOS and TMP. But "same skeleton" isn't. That's what I was talking about, and what I continue to talk about.

We can say that something we saw... either in TOS or in TMP... was actually inaccurate, and "really always looked like one or the other." That's what you'd need to argue in order to say that "the skeleton remained the same."

Personally, I can't accept that. I can see all the differences very easily. Granted, my own sense of "3D spacial awareness" is better than the average person's... so I acknowledge that most people might not pick up on it like I do. But to me, it's like being told "that chimp is really a human being, and always has been."

 

[Timo]

It shouldn't be that difficult to see how extreme the supposed "refits" were, considering that there are pictures available online of the respective ship types. Just overlay them on one another and observe how the key dimensions don't match at all, or how curvature is slightly altered.

The latter in particular is telling. It's almost trivially easy to remove all of an Iowa's superstructure and rebuild her as a flattop or an oil tanker. But it would be hellishly difficult to reshape her bows to be one meter narrower - probably completely outside the scope of today's industrial capabilities. Removing and installing new components is simple. Changing the shape of major existing ones is complex and expensive, typically prohibitively so.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[goose814]

Here's a couple more comparisons:

Comparison 3 by goose81465, on Flickr

Comparison 2 by goose81465, on Flickr

The first is the K'tinga scaled to the Kimble blueprints size of 214.3 meters (703 ft.) length along with the Refit Enterprise. To me it looks a bit too small.

The second image is the two with the primary hull thickness the same. This gives the K'tinga a length of 860 ft. This looks a little better.

 

[Wingsley]

What if you took those side-by-side comparisons and made the K'T'inga and the refit Enterprise the same length, or maybe made the Klingon ship slightly longer?

 

[goose814]

It can be made as big as you want. I was trying to keep it reasonable by finding some sort of common thread between the two. That's why I used the primary hull edge. On both ships, it's supposedley two decks thick, so that's the common item I came up with. It's possible it can vary somewhat based on the height of the K'tinga's decks. Just look at the comparison between the K'tinga and the D7 when they were scaled to the same overall length. The D7's primary hull edge increased by half a deck (maybe about 5 ft.) in height.

 

[RobertScorpio]

It can be made as big as you want. I was trying to keep it reasonable by finding some sort of common thread between the two. That's why I used the primary hull edge. On both ships, it's supposedley two decks thick, so that's the common item I came up with. It's possible it can vary somewhat based on the height of the K'tinga's decks. Just look at the comparison between the K'tinga and the D7 when they were scaled to the same overall length. The D7's primary hull edge increased by half a deck (maybe about 5 ft.) in height.

The first nine words of your reply are the words of a producer/writer!!!

Love it!!

Rob

 

[goose814]

The first nine words of your reply are the words of a producer/writer!!!

Love it!!

Rob

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/goose814/Comp.jpg

Great minds think alike.

 

[Timo]

I think we're all agreed on that the Klingons built a lean and mean ship as their champion against the Starfleet heavy cruisers - leaving ashore the laboratories, botanical gardens and such. And they seem to feel confident that such a ship could go one-on-one against a Constitution, if for some reason it wasn't possible to bring numerical superiority to play - but they do prefer engaging in formations of three.

All that in mind, I'd be happiest with relatively small vessels: the TOS battle cruiser as shown in the onscreen computer monitor comparison in "The Enterprise Incident", and with a K't'inga that matches the TOS vessel in forward pod and engine dimensions.

...you'd need a shoehorn to get more that 400 inside.

Perhaps quite a few of those are Marines, packed real tight in the holds - possibly even in stasis?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

Ya know, there's a crew of 5,000 on the aircraft carrier Enterprise, and it's the same length as the 1701 (not sure about volume-wise). I have no trouble picturing 400 on the D7.

 

[Mysterion]

Ya know, there's a crew of 5,000 on the aircraft carrier Enterprise, and it's the same length as the 1701 (not sure about volume-wise). I have no trouble picturing 400 on the D7.

Agreed.

Once you get over the mania of everyone having their own toilet, and that kind of insanity there's plenty of room.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Ya know, there's a crew of 5,000 on the aircraft carrier Enterprise, and it's the same length as the 1701 (not sure about volume-wise). I have no trouble picturing 400 on the D7.

good point..I spent MANY years of my life on Air-craft carriers. It was crowded, but not that bad once you got use to it. The food was lousy!!! But the port calls were..well...very curvy. WINK WINK

Rob

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It can be made as big as you want. I was trying to keep it reasonable by finding some sort of common thread between the two.

How's this for a common thread: Klingons design starships the same way they design swords. Basic shape is a style thing based on some convention of design logic: modularity, radar cross section, psychology, or whatever. This is part of the reason why all of their ships have the same GENERAL shape even though they all have slightly different configurations and sizes. They only occasionally change more than just the shape by adding new details and greebles, but overall the general shape always remains roughly the same.

In which case, it's possible the K'Tinga really is larger than the D7, and this is the most significant difference between the two. It would be similar to the difference between the F-16 and the Mitsubishi F-2: a couple of very similar aircraft with slightly different sizes (or the Mig-29 and the Su-27, similar designs but one is somewhat larger than the other).

So if the D7 is in the neighborhood of 250 meters in length, I'd peg the K'Tinga at at least 350 meters.