The builder of that AMT kit I liked to pictures of tells me it was an "out of the box" build (his words), with the exception of aftermarket nacelle caps, intercoolers and decals. He said he filled the under saucer dimples and rings, and shortened he deflector stem. That's it. Looks nice enough for me, and has inspired me to build my own "grossly inaccurate" AMT Enterprise for the first time in over 30 years.
The AMT kit is 90 to 95% the way there. But it is not a very good match of the 11 footer. And I agree that your friend's finished kit looks very nice. He did a heck of a job with it. I hope he's proudly displaying it, as it is very well done.
And I'm not sure who you're quoting having said "grossly inaccurate." Wasn't me. My whole argument is just that the AMT kit is different enough from the
Enterprise as it appeared on screen to be justifiably a different type of ship. That's all.
So let me go though the differences. NOTE TO ALL: if you don't care about this whole AMT vs. Shooting model discussion, feel free to skip this post.
Starting from the bow and working my way aft, here are the differences in the AMT kit as compared to the 11 foot photography miniature:
1.) The edge of the saucer is much less sharply angled.
2.) The lower saucer's outer edge has a wide flat ring which doesn't occur on the 11-footer.
3.) The bridge dome is completely different.
4.) The "B-C" deck teardrop superstructure is completely different.*
5.) The lower/planetary sensor dome is much smaller.
6.) There are three little dimples on the lower saucer (which you mentioned your friend had to fill.)
7.) The hardware above the impulse engine (directly above the interconnecting dorsal) is much bulkier.
8.) The sides of the dorsal are totally different (the 11-footer had something of an airfoil shape, while the AMT is flat)
9.) The deflector dish sits much too far forward (another change your friend made)
10.) The flat panels where the red pennants go on the engineering hull should be somewhat inset. The foraed ends of these box structures are not correctly shaped.
11.) The forward domes on the engines are too small, making the chamfer around them too wide.**
12.) The three panels on the lower surface of the forward end of the nacelles should be narrower and thicker.***
13.) The forward end of the intercooler loops should be a wide box projecting from the nacelle. In fact, comparing this whole part to the 11-footer shows it's much too bulky and is quite different than what is on the studio model.
14.) The pylons are too thick and attach to the nacelles too high.
15.) The spine of the engineering hull is missing several lights.
16.) The cut-out under the hangar deck it not the correct profile.
17.) The hangar bay doors are flattened considerably fore-to-aft.
18.) The inner trenches of the nacelles have a very different geometry.
19.) The upper aft intercooler loops are wrong (your friend found some nice aftermarket ones.)
20.) The aft boxes on the nacelles should have flat tops and bottoms, the AMT one are angled.
21.) The nacelles should have a greater taper to them fore-to-aft. They are noticeably too parallel. ****
22.) The aft end caps lack any detailing. This is plainly evident on the
Constellation model as photographed, though your friend found some nice aftermarket parts to dress up his kit.
I'm pretty sure that's most of it. The overall profiles of bothe the saucer and engineering hull are subtly wrong too, but they aren't off by a whole lot.
Some of these inaccuracies are pretty subtle, others less so. Having studied these things as much as I have, they kinda leap out at me. In fact, I noticed the differences in the AMT
Constellation even way back as a kid. It always struck me as a very different ship from the
Enterprise.
I'm not trying to suggest that the producers intended it to be a different class from the
Enterprise, just that there are enough differences to justify that it could be if you want to think of it that way. Which is what I choose to do. I stand my idea that the
Constellation was a much older ship that received a very extensive, TMP-like refit to bring it in line with current Connie specs. Or near enough to that.
But your mileage is absolutely free to vary.
--Alex
________
*Looks like your friend had a vintage 1960's kit made with the original aluminum tools.... in the later versions made with the steel tools this area looks even less like the 11-footer.
**The later steel tooling actually improves on these parts.
*** This whole area is pretty different on the later tooling. It ends up being one part where all three boxes are connected as one part. I'm not sure exactly how the 1960's kit did it, but they look incorrect on your friend's build in any case.
****I understand this too was changed on the later tooling. The vintage kit had almost straight eniges tubes, while the later ones did introduce some taper, but not quite enough.
