• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Missing 32" Enterprise finally found...

I’ve been doing some quick back of the hand calculations and it seems that the 33” model works out to be in 1/28th scale based off the 947’ size given by Jeffries, in it’s current form.
I think you mixed feet and inches. Mixed units gives wrong answer. It happened to NASA once, causing a probe to burn up in the atmosphere of Mars instead of achieving orbit:

 
What interests me as a modeler is the question of what scale the model was originally intended to be…

I’ve been doing some quick back of the hand calculations and it seems that the 33” model works out to be in 1/28th scale based off the 947’ size given by Jeffries, in it’s current form.

But we know that the original ship design was a little bit different in terms of scale with the larger bridge dome… and looking at some common scales I think originally the model was intended to be at the 1/24th scale, or .5 in to the foot, with an LOA of the ship intended to be 792’. Then, the scale was adjusted to be 1/28 or .4 in to the foot when the bridge dome was lowered.

Given it was being used as a study model for the Phase II ship which was intended to be just about 1000’ overall I guess you can argue that by 1979 that scale had been adjusted again to 1/30, which yields a clean 999’.

I’m sure this is all a revelation to precisely no one but myself but I thought it was interesting to speculate on anyhow.
As others have said, this was a concept model and scale wasn't really part of the thought process.
This version of the ship was built 1:1 from the original plans.
The final filming model was built 4x larger than the original plans.
 
There was a thread around here somewhere, some time ago, possibly by MGagen, that iirc looked at the keel numbers on the secondary hull and came up with a length for the original design of something like 550 feet, which if true would make the 33” model originally intended to be a nice, round 1/200 scale if my math is right. It would also fit with the ship being sized to match a naval heavy cruiser.
 
There was a thread around here somewhere, some time ago, possibly by MGagen, that iirc looked at the keel numbers on the secondary hull and came up with a length for the original design of something like 550 feet, which if true would make the 33” model originally intended to be a nice, round 1/200 scale if my math is right. It would also fit with the ship being sized to match a naval heavy cruiser.

You mean this...

I'm the one who discovered this, back in 2003. Up to this point, no one had made any sense out of the markings. I felt they must reflect some real-world measurement, but it wasn't until I began corresponding with Richard Datin that I found the key to making sense of them. The numbers aren't perfectly situated, but they are too close to be accidental. One of the construction blueprints that Datin still had at the time gave real life scale measurements. This was not the final blueprint, but a preliminary one; and it was for a smaller ship design. This scale would have rendered the ship as finally built 540 feet in length. The final model, scaled per this preliminary blueprint, causes the numbered station markings to fall out as scale inches.

Here's my original image comparing the actual placement of the markings with their ideal locations.

M.

I found it in 15 seconds by searching for posts with "540" by MGagan. :)

EDIT: Fixed typo in number.
 
Last edited:
You mean this...


I found it in 15 seconds by searching for posts with "520" by MGagan. :)
If only I could find that Bill Bixby singing* Triscuit commercial from the mid-'70s as easily.;)
Some things may be deliberately buried forever.

My Yale graduate brother seemed confused why the Enterprise model at the Air and Space restaurant was only painted one one side. Symmetry of the ship-sides and TV budgets, that's why.

(*Rather like asking for milk in a bar.)
 
My Yale graduate brother seemed confused why the Enterprise model at the Air and Space restaurant was only painted one one side. Symmetry of the ship-sides and TV budgets, that's why.

Not so much budget -- since they had to change the decals to mirror-image ones anyway when they needed to shoot the "port" side of the ship, and that surely cost more in the long run than painting both sides the first time -- as that the wiring went in on the port side, so they couldn't shoot it anyway.
 
Not so much budget -- since they had to change the decals to mirror-image ones anyway when they needed to shoot the "port" side of the ship, and that surely cost more in the long run than painting both sides the first time -- as that the wiring went in on the port side, so they couldn't shoot it anyway.

Didn't they only end up doing that for WNMHGB, and then they didn't even use that footage until later?
 
Yup. Been keeping an eye on it. It ruffled some people at RPF forums because it is being done in a house by one guy. But so what. It's a small model and only one person should be working on it. I'm guessing he will have to disassemble after removing all the decals and cleaning. Fix the cracks and make it sturdy again. Preserve as much surface paint as possible, make new decals and then reassemble. Can't wait till he's finished.

They should be able to preserve the original decals and just replace the missing pieces.
 
The 11' model was never intended to be filmed from the port side. Richard Datin told me that. That's why the box thing to the side of the main sensor dish is utterly absent from that side. Why they painted a pennant on the nacelle on that side is the mystery.
 
Rod.has said it won't be a complete restoration..

Right. It sounds like he wants a less intrusive restoration keeping as much of the original decals and such intact. Just like poster or comic book restoration they just fill in the missing pieces. I hope that's what Rod is thinking.
 
Rod's posted several videos of work being done on the model on Instagram.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


So far so good. Im so happy the original is out of the hands of the clowns who found it and tried to scam millions out of it. Close call.
 
The 11' model was never intended to be filmed from the port side. Richard Datin told me that. That's why the box thing to the side of the main sensor dish is utterly absent from that side.

Oh. Well, if it affected the construction of the model as well as the paint job (which I now remember it did, e.g. the nacelle detail being simpler on the unseen side), then I guess it could've been a budgetary decision after all. Never mind...
 
You mean this...
I found it in 15 seconds by searching for posts with "520" by MGagan. :)

550

Or, per Gagen, 540

One thing I learned from teaching graduate students at four institutions of higher learning is to let students find the answers for themselves and in so doing, own the results.

I sincerely hope you are proud of yourself.
 
550

Or, per Gagen, 540

One thing I learned from teaching graduate students at four institutions of higher learning is to let students find the answers for themselves and in so doing, own the results.

I sincerely hope you are proud of yourself.

Is THAT what we've been doing all these years? :D
 
550

Or, per Gagen, 540

One thing I learned from teaching graduate students at four institutions of higher learning is to let students find the answers for themselves and in so doing, own the results.

I sincerely hope you are proud of yourself.
Typo.

I was being playful. You're just being… you.
 
Typo.

I was being playful. You're just being… you.
Maurice, you never fail to condescend, one up, derogate, and/or bend over backwards to show us all how much you know. Pardon me but after so long, it has just gotten boring. I mean no insult but truly, find a new schtick.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top