Engine Room(s) on the TOS Enterprise (revisited)

[uniderth]

Or maybe, the Enterprise model itself was built with forced perspective to make the aft end look longer when filmed from the front. I heard the port nacelle is smaller than the starboard one which also implies FP. If you un-force perspective it, then there is less tapper such that the aft end of secondary hull is naturally longer and bigger in diameter. Nah?

Or MAYBE, the earth was built in forced perspective to make it appear like a sphere.

 

[BK613]

Okay, so I imported Sinclair's blueprint (sheet 11) into Sketchup to see what's what. Sketchup has a tool called Measuring Tape which has a feature that let's you resize an entire model based on a single measurement. So I set guides at the front and back of the side view and resized for 947'.

I then carefully set guides for on the secondary hull for the points of interest to measure the size of the hull in the area of the shuttlebay. I then drew vertical lines at the forward side of the pylon, the aft end of the pylon and forward end of the fantail with the thought of comparing their lengths to the shuttlebay model's measurements as given by Richard Datin. I also drew the four possibilities of what he might mean by "length" (was the fantail included?) below the hull.
The results (I consider these approximations):
Diameter of Hull

• fwd fantail: 60.351'
• aft pylon: 69.523'
• fwd pylon: 74.592'

Length

• aft fantail to fwd pylon : 116.810'
• aft fantail to aft pylon ; 81.394'
• fwd fantail to aft pylon: 64.076'
• fwd fantail to fwd pylon: 99.492'

Now, the measurement I've bolded are interesting because they are close to the values Datin listed (76", 60", 122", 1"=1') I would say those are well within any margin of error that exists. So maybe those were external measurements.

Spoiler: Image showing my work

 

[yotsuya]

Okay, so I imported Sinclair's blueprint (sheet 11) into Sketchup to see what's what. Sketchup has a tool called Measuring Tape which has a feature that let's you resize an entire model based on a single measurement. So I set guides at the front and back of the side view and resized for 947'.

I then carefully set guides for on the secondary hull for the points of interest to measure the size of the hull in the area of the shuttlebay. I then drew vertical lines at the forward side of the pylon, the aft end of the pylon and forward end of the fantail with the thought of comparing their lengths to the shuttlebay model's measurements as given by Richard Datin. I also drew the four possibilities of what he might mean by "length" (was the fantail included?) below the hull.
The results (I consider these approximations):
Diameter of Hull

• fwd fantail: 60.351'
• aft pylon: 69.523'
• fwd pylon: 74.592'

Length

• aft fantail to fwd pylon : 116.810'
• aft fantail to aft pylon ; 81.394'
• fwd fantail to aft pylon: 64.076'
• fwd fantail to fwd pylon: 99.492'

Now, the measurement I've bolded are interesting because they are close to the values Datin listed (76", 60", 122", 1"=1') I would say those are well within any margin of error that exists. So maybe those were external measurements.

Spoiler: Image showing my work

I come up with 58, 72, and 114, but the same proportions and only slightly smaller. But I should mention I am not using Sinclair.

Suprisingly, if you take the drawing from TMoST and remove the hull line, the rest fits within the ship and the people and shuttle are in nearly the correct scale. The observation deck doesn't correspond to any outside windows, but it would be easy to say they are just viewscreens. I prefer to squish it a bit, but this is the approach Franz Joseph took to fit it in.

 

[Henoch]

I used the scale as given on the illustrations (as written above). The 22' shuttle isn't a factor in this case. However, I went back and looked at the hangar deck from the profile and a more exact point at the turntable yields 80' across (outer hull to outer hull) which is still too large to fit in the illustrated 947' MJ Enterprise.

The two cut away hangar sketches with matched scale reveals the size of the hangar. I assume it is meant to extend under the pylons based on its 122' length.

Now, the measurement I've bolded are interesting because they are close to the values Datin listed (76", 60", 122", 1"=1') I would say those are well within any margin of error that exists. So maybe those were external measurements.

I also wonder whether his dimensions are external model measurements. I was working on the same idea. Could the difference between 122' vs. your 116' length be the difference in fantail shape; The Datin model looks like he used a perfect half-circle for the doors vs. the squashed clamshell doors on the sketch and the 11' foot model. To fit these dimensions, 60' x 76' x 122'. I also sketched it out from above:

Spoiler: hangar compare

 

[yotsuya]

The two cut away hangar sketches with matched scale reveals the size of the hangar. I assume it is meant to extend under the pylons based on its 122' length.

I strongly disagree that those sketches reveal the size of the hanger because of the observation deck is unnaturally slanted showing the intention that these drawings were for a forced perspective use making the dimensions questionable. The only interest is that they seem to be a first draft of the model Datin built. About the only thing in scale in the drawings are the shuttle and people. The observation deck is too short on the aft end (the biggest difference from Datin's model). I think the hanger Jefferies drew drew for Phase II is more in line with both what Datin built and with Jefferies own TOS drawings (the cross section and the pressure bulkhead drawing ). To make the scale of the observation deck fit, you have to have a bigger ship where with Datin's model, there is at least a chance that it could fit.

 

[blssdwlf]

The two cut away hangar sketches with matched scale reveals the size of the hangar. I assume it is meant to extend under the pylons based on its 122' length.

I also wonder whether his dimensions are external model measurements. I was working on the same idea. Could the difference between 122' vs. your 116' length be the difference in fantail shape; The Datin model looks like he used a perfect half-circle for the doors vs. the squashed clamshell doors on the sketch and the 11' foot model. To fit these dimensions, 60' x 76' x 122'. I also sketched it out from above:

Spoiler: hangar compare

I think the Datin model's half-circle doors match best with the 11' model. The squashed clamshell doors seems to be from the MJ illustrations. I think Datin's measurements are probably external measurements and at the widest point includes some extra inches on the rim/lip. When I built out my 3D model, the flight deck fits in a 947' ship (22' shuttle) as long as you ignored the side alcoves

Suprisingly, if you take the drawing from TMoST and remove the hull line, the rest fits within the ship and the people and shuttle are in nearly the correct scale.

Looking again at the drawing the external hull line is probably to account for the side alcoves on the deck level as they add to the overall width of the deck.

 

[BK613]

@Henoch As blssdwlf f mentioned the doors are a half circle.
@yotsuya Was surprised the numbers matched so well. Agree with you on the PII hangar; in fact the PII Enterprise cross-section show a 119' long bay (478-359=119). (And as an aside: it's h_a_n_g_a_r not h_a_n_g_e_r. Thought you know. )
@blssdwlf Remind me, was your model's interior or exterior dimensions closest to Datin's?

 

[yotsuya]

I am a terrible speller. Google corrected me as I was searching for the FJ hanger to prepare this image.

Here are my hangar comparisons. I did various sizes of Jefferies hangar, including what I am going to use, plus FJ's and the Phase II hangar.

I think the way Datin built it is closer to how FJ drew it than to Jefferies drawing.

 

[blssdwlf]

@Henoch As blssdwlf f mentioned the doors are a half circle.
@yotsuya Was surprised the numbers matched so well. Agree with you on the PII hangar; in fact the PII Enterprise cross-section show a 119' long bay (478-359=119). (And as an aside: it's h_a_n_g_a_r not h_a_n_g_e_r. Thought you know. )
@blssdwlf Remind me, was your model's interior or exterior dimensions closest to Datin's?

My 3D model, measured from the interior (because the walls have no thickness as I built it as if it were in the hull and not as a literal maquette):

length+fantail = 123'6"
length-fantail = 90'10"

forward (under the pylons) width+alcoves = 75'6"
forward (under the pylons) width-alcoves = 67'9"
height = 33'3"

aft width = 57'7"
aft height = 28'7"

If we "thickened" the walls of my model into a maquette I think I'd be pretty close to Datin's maquette widths at 76' and 60'. I'm two feet longer than 122' though. I probably could get alot closer by incorporating the reverse angle of the maquette to revise my model as I only built in from the one camera angle.

 

[uniderth]

If course, all this would be in the "overscan" area of the TV of time and outside the "safe" region of the frame. This is why so many mics and stuff that never showed up in original broadcast now show on modern TVs.

Interesting. Makes me wonder if its better to crop the footage or utilize the whole thing, even though some of it was not meant to be seen.

 

[Henoch]

I strongly disagree that those sketches reveal the size of the hanger because of the observation deck is unnaturally slanted showing the intention that these drawings were for a forced perspective use making the dimensions questionable. The only interest is that they seem to be a first draft of the model Datin built. About the only thing in scale in the drawings are the shuttle and people. The observation deck is too short on the aft end (the biggest difference from Datin's model). I think the hanger Jefferies drew drew for Phase II is more in line with both what Datin built and with Jefferies own TOS drawings (the cross section and the pressure bulkhead drawing ). To make the scale of the observation deck fit, you have to have a bigger ship where with Datin's model, there is at least a chance that it could fit.

After viewing the rear Enterprise shots in the two top pics which are are distorted to expand the rear of the ship, I think @yotsuya is on to something. The slanted down observation deck in MJ's sketch is a clear marker for the force perspective. As I indicated above, the rear portion of the Enterprise model and drawings must have force perspective built into it to make the E look more tampered and longer when filmed from the front. If you reverse the force perspective (I don't have the tools) starting around the rear of the dorsal neck junction, even the windows start to line up better (0 degrees on the flight deck, a 0.5 degree down slant for the set of windows below the flight deck, a 1 degree up slant for the deck above the flight deck, a 1.9 degree slant up for the next deck up which brings the two hangar deck windows up to the observation deck level). The net result is that the secondary hull becomes more cylindrical and thus bigger and longer at the hangar. Same with the warp nacelles.

 

[BK613]

^^Personally, I think "it's close enough" was a more likely culprit.

 

[yotsuya]

After viewing the rear Enterprise shots in the two top pics which are are distorted to expand the rear of the ship, I think @yotsuya is on to something. The slanted down observation deck in MJ's sketch is a clear marker for the force perspective. As I indicated above, the rear portion of the Enterprise model and drawings must have force perspective built into it to make the E look more tampered and longer when filmed from the front. If you reverse the force perspective (I don't have the tools) starting around the rear of the dorsal neck junction, even the windows start to line up better (0 degrees on the flight deck, a 0.5 degree down slant for the set windows below the flight deck, a 1 degree up slant for the deck above the flight deck, a 1.9 degree slant up for the next deck up which brings the two hangar deck windows up to the observation deck level). The net result is that the secondary hull becomes more cylindrical and thus bigger and longer at the hangar. Same with the warp nacelles.

Except that the windows everywhere else follow a nice deck layout. And according to the way Jefferies drew it, if you raise the observation deck slightly the two round windows line up nicely. The two rectangular windows are each 5 feet wide, way wider than what we saw on screen. The two round windows are closer in size and spacing. Not the right shape, but a better fit in every other respect.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Don't forget that the turntable/elevator that descends from the flight deck to the hangar deck below has to be far enough forward to clear the fantail. I think this was foremost on FJ's mind when he chose the scale that he did?

 

[yotsuya]

Because we never see the elevator in TOS and because TMP and TFF have the same basic hangar layout, I'm going with two side by side elevators (to either side of the Journey to Babel corridor). So the circle in the hangar is just a turntable, exactly what we see in TOS. Perhaps not a popular option, but it doesn't contradict what we see on screen.

 

[Henoch]

Except that the windows everywhere else follow a nice deck layout.

Not everywhere; only in the first half of the secondary hull are the windows in line, then they start tapering toward the flight deck (both above and below) in the last half of the hull. It's as if the transition was facetted or only applied to the second half of the hull. The MJ hangar side cutaway shows the downward slanting observation deck, so, it must be force perspective in both the internal shape of the hangar and the external hull dimensions. I admit it makes the rear of the Enterprise look fat assed or more of a cylinder especially along its top spine as seen in the early turbolift or pressure hull diagrams.

 

[yotsuya]

The drawings I consider most accurate show no sign of any slant to any row of windows. So I don't think your theory holds up.

 

[BK613]

Not everywhere; only in the first half of the secondary hull are the windows in line, then they start tapering toward the flight deck (both above and below) in the last half of the hull. .

Actually, this isn't factual. The secondary hull is built of wood planks and the windows follow the seams of the hull even up front. And it is worth repeating; the studio model was well built but it is not an example of precise engineering.

Spoiler: Windows and seams

 

[Henoch]

That explains it, the model secondary hull is built like a barrel. Each wooden board is tapered, so, if the windows follow the seams, they too are tapered. Those pictures clearly show the windows are angled or tapered because the seams are angled/tapered as you follow them to the rear like barrel slats. Can anyone un-barrel or un-taper the rear of the ship? I still bet that the two low windows at the rear will rise up to be inline with the windows in the front of the hull especially it they were lined up on the same seam.

I see that the window alignment was not part a some force perspective design, rather, it was just easier to cut the windows following the tapering seams in the rear of the ship. In the front they adjusted for it to level out the front set of windows:

 

[yotsuya]

Actually, the pictures BK613 posted show the windows kinda follow the seams, but most are not on seams. Also the research into what the first pilot version looked like show that when the inserted the plastic bars to make the lit windows, they put them where the windows were previously painted on. As the hull was finished and smooth, any relation to the seams is a coincidence. Especially since the seams are not the same on both sides. Also, the design of the Enterprise means the windows would not be in horizontal lines, and from what I see, the window lines are perfectly horizontal, not tapered. And the only person to have hands on access to the model shared this CG image (done from his data) of the side. The windows are perfectly horizontal, no tapering.

And this image proves, if you look carefully, that this major row of windows is NOT on the seam and is NOT parallel to the seam. Only one of the rectangular windows in this image is on the seam.

And it's not like they put the blocks in crooked, because they aren't parallel on the outside either.