What Gary appears to be doing is similar to how I approached trying to draw the "real" shuttlecraft. I used the full-size mockup as the baseline and the truest representation of the actual ship. The only thing I took from the miniature was the underside detailing (the scallop or cut-out underneath) and that the miniature doesn't have the obvious "nose down" orientation. To that end I cleaned up the lines of the stabilizer rim detail to create a suggustion of "nose down" when it isn't at all---its an illusion---because I made the underside of the underside of the stabilizer rim run parallel to the ground and nacelle centrelines. I felt it a reasonable compromise to make the ship look most like it does onscreen whether seen up close or from a distance. Also the wedge like shape of the full-size mockup is part of its look so I didn't want to lose that.
The biggest issue that arises with the shuttlecraft is the interior in size and proportions. To get the interior we saw onscreen you would have to scale up the exterior to some 32ft. in length. This results in two propblems. Firstly from a practical standpoint (within the fictional context) the craft has become too large to be properly accommodated within the Enterprise's hangar deck, also taking into account the ship has at least four shuttlecraft to accommodate. Another problem (within the fictional context) is the step up height to enter/exit the craft becomes inconveniently high. Another problem is that even scaling up the exterior doesn't help the fact the proportions of the interior cabin don't match the exterior shell. The exterior is proportionately much wider than the interior would dictate (which in itself isn't a huge problem because it allows for mechanicals between hulls), but even worse the angle of the interior's forward bulkhead is much more shallow than the angle of the exterior's sloping hull. That and the width issue means it is basically impossible to match up the exterior and interior window placements. If you widen the interior to fit the exterior you end up with something that looks unnaturely wide inside. If you match the exterior openings to match the interior you drastically change the look of the ship's forward section. No matter what way you do it it ends up looking wrong. I don't mean this as a serious criticism, but everyone I've seen wrestle with this issue to accommodate a standing interior ends up having to alter the look of the craft significantly.
I largerly ignored the 24ft. reference onscreen because it was simply too constraining. I approached it with the idea "what was Jefferies really trying to convey?" while taking into account obvious production compromises. The interior is the sticking point.
The first things that hit me while looking at the interior were the fact the chairs and consoles were set lower to the deck for no discernible reason---they obviously had enough room. And why were the actors so often walking about the interior stooped over a bit when they obviously had enough room to stand? Finally we know many of the Enterprise sets were a bit oversized (particularly in ceiling height) to accommodate the bulky filming equipment of the time. So why would the shuttlecraft interior be any different? From those clues I reasoned they were trying to suggest the interior was actually meant to be smaller than what we saw (just as the forced perspective of the exterior tried to make the mockup look larger than it actuall was). The conclusion I came to was the exterior had to be a bit larger than the actual mockup and the interior had to be smaller than what it seemed to be onscreen.
I played with both to make them fit together. In the end I had an exterior that was about 26-1/2ft. in length and an interior that allowed someone 5'-7" to stand upright, but anyone taller had to stoop a bit, which is what we saw them doing onscreen. I was able to keep the proportions of the interior as seen except in two measurements. The length is tightened up some as was the ceiling height, but otherwise it looks very much like it does on the screen.
Perhaps the most contentious issue I faced was the forward bulkhead. I faced the same problem everyone faces when they get to this point: there is no way to properly match the exterior and interior window placings without some major compromise, also considering the angle of the exterior and interior bulkheads are different as well. I didn't want to drastically alter the look of either the exterior or interior and so I went with a tech solution: I reasoned what we saw from the inside were not actually windows in the traditional sense. Rather I accepted them as display monitors similar to those seen around the Enterprise's bridge. The exterior panels I rationalized as sensor panels. I know this is a sticking point with some, but no one can offer me a better solution. Taking this route also allowed me to retain the differing angles of both the exterior and interior bulkheads.
Even with my compromises I still had an exterior proportionately wider than the interior, but not nearly as great as with maintaining a huge interior. But this allowed me to be more "real" because now I could allow for a double hull structure with room for systems and mechanicals between hulls rather than trying to make it look like the ship had little more than a plywood thin hull (something the Franz Joseph drawings of the shuttlecraft has).
Finally there was a coincidental result of my final approach to the shuttlecraft: the length of the main hull, excluding nacelles and aft landing gear, is near exactly 24ft. I was quite surprised to learn that.
This was my solution and it isn't definitive because everyone else will have different interpretations and emphasize different elements. My overriding consideration was that my final result actually look near identical to what I saw onscreen. I was striving for a "real" integrated vehicle rather than simply replicating a studio prop.
In the end the main thing I'm concerned with regarding the forthcoming Round2 model kit is that they get the exterior right. And if Gary is using the full-size mockup as the primary template than I have little worry over the final result. Regardless of it being 1/32 scale in your own mind it can be whatever you really believe it to be.
The biggest issue that arises with the shuttlecraft is the interior in size and proportions. To get the interior we saw onscreen you would have to scale up the exterior to some 32ft. in length. This results in two propblems. Firstly from a practical standpoint (within the fictional context) the craft has become too large to be properly accommodated within the Enterprise's hangar deck, also taking into account the ship has at least four shuttlecraft to accommodate. Another problem (within the fictional context) is the step up height to enter/exit the craft becomes inconveniently high. Another problem is that even scaling up the exterior doesn't help the fact the proportions of the interior cabin don't match the exterior shell. The exterior is proportionately much wider than the interior would dictate (which in itself isn't a huge problem because it allows for mechanicals between hulls), but even worse the angle of the interior's forward bulkhead is much more shallow than the angle of the exterior's sloping hull. That and the width issue means it is basically impossible to match up the exterior and interior window placements. If you widen the interior to fit the exterior you end up with something that looks unnaturely wide inside. If you match the exterior openings to match the interior you drastically change the look of the ship's forward section. No matter what way you do it it ends up looking wrong. I don't mean this as a serious criticism, but everyone I've seen wrestle with this issue to accommodate a standing interior ends up having to alter the look of the craft significantly.
I largerly ignored the 24ft. reference onscreen because it was simply too constraining. I approached it with the idea "what was Jefferies really trying to convey?" while taking into account obvious production compromises. The interior is the sticking point.
The first things that hit me while looking at the interior were the fact the chairs and consoles were set lower to the deck for no discernible reason---they obviously had enough room. And why were the actors so often walking about the interior stooped over a bit when they obviously had enough room to stand? Finally we know many of the Enterprise sets were a bit oversized (particularly in ceiling height) to accommodate the bulky filming equipment of the time. So why would the shuttlecraft interior be any different? From those clues I reasoned they were trying to suggest the interior was actually meant to be smaller than what we saw (just as the forced perspective of the exterior tried to make the mockup look larger than it actuall was). The conclusion I came to was the exterior had to be a bit larger than the actual mockup and the interior had to be smaller than what it seemed to be onscreen.
I played with both to make them fit together. In the end I had an exterior that was about 26-1/2ft. in length and an interior that allowed someone 5'-7" to stand upright, but anyone taller had to stoop a bit, which is what we saw them doing onscreen. I was able to keep the proportions of the interior as seen except in two measurements. The length is tightened up some as was the ceiling height, but otherwise it looks very much like it does on the screen.
Perhaps the most contentious issue I faced was the forward bulkhead. I faced the same problem everyone faces when they get to this point: there is no way to properly match the exterior and interior window placings without some major compromise, also considering the angle of the exterior and interior bulkheads are different as well. I didn't want to drastically alter the look of either the exterior or interior and so I went with a tech solution: I reasoned what we saw from the inside were not actually windows in the traditional sense. Rather I accepted them as display monitors similar to those seen around the Enterprise's bridge. The exterior panels I rationalized as sensor panels. I know this is a sticking point with some, but no one can offer me a better solution. Taking this route also allowed me to retain the differing angles of both the exterior and interior bulkheads.
Even with my compromises I still had an exterior proportionately wider than the interior, but not nearly as great as with maintaining a huge interior. But this allowed me to be more "real" because now I could allow for a double hull structure with room for systems and mechanicals between hulls rather than trying to make it look like the ship had little more than a plywood thin hull (something the Franz Joseph drawings of the shuttlecraft has).
Finally there was a coincidental result of my final approach to the shuttlecraft: the length of the main hull, excluding nacelles and aft landing gear, is near exactly 24ft. I was quite surprised to learn that.
This was my solution and it isn't definitive because everyone else will have different interpretations and emphasize different elements. My overriding consideration was that my final result actually look near identical to what I saw onscreen. I was striving for a "real" integrated vehicle rather than simply replicating a studio prop.
In the end the main thing I'm concerned with regarding the forthcoming Round2 model kit is that they get the exterior right. And if Gary is using the full-size mockup as the primary template than I have little worry over the final result. Regardless of it being 1/32 scale in your own mind it can be whatever you really believe it to be.
