I'll forego the Sinclair part of the comparisons, since his and Casimiro's plans are pretty damn close to each other proportion-wise, and Casimiro's drawings have a heavier line weight, which makes this sort of thing a lot easier. Pics to follow shortly...
How bizarre that AMT seemed closer than FJ. What the heck? Does it have something to do with the 3-footer?
It probably has more to do with available reference material, and at the time, that model was only three dollars and a trip to Sears away. Also, there were very few clear pictures of the B/C section at that time, so very few people were aware of just how inaccurate that part of the model was (especially since it matches up precisely with the drawings in TMoST). I really don't fault FJ at all over those plans. Quite the contrary, there's no denying that it's a landmark work and set a baseline for everything that came after it. What gets me irritated is having them shoved in my face after all the inaccuracies and absurdities have been so well documented.
No, I meant that the AMT looks closer to the Casmiro drawing (and thus the 'actual' shape of the 11-footer) than FJ's does to either. Or is it just me? (Incidentally, did you do these in Photoshop?)
Ahh. For the life of me, I can't find an easy way to do a color replacement in Photoshop Elements, and I really don't want to do this on the computer with the full suite on it. I think that AMT/Casmiro comparison sounds brilliant.
Yeah, a lot of FJ's lines are closer to the three-footer (particularly the under-curves both on the saucer and the secondary hull, where it's most obvious). Some of the shots in "Doomsday Machine", for instance, really do point out just how dramatically different the three models used in the series were from one another. (IF I remember right, FJ had more access to the AMT model and the three-footer, since the 11-footer had already been crated up and shipped out. Otherwise, he had only the 8mm films to go on, which were much in quality already by that time.)
Right about the saucer, but the secondary hull seems to have come from the writer's guide cover. I had heard that FJ had gotten the mini as well, but I've never seen a CLEAR shot of that one.
CRA, Well, that's why we're here isn't it, to settle once and for all just how "Inacurate and absurd" (or not) FJ's plans are/were? Considering what we knew of the fictional world of trek tech at the time, His plans work pretty well, they're well thought out and logicaly consistant. While there are many minor details that are in fact "inacuracies" and are no doubt the result of the limited referance materials then available, these can easily be corrected. However, we should perhaps define what exactly it is we mean by "inacurate" or "mistake" since many of the more obvious ways in which FJ's plans depart from (some of) the onscreen material was a deliberate attempt on his part to reconcile and compromise with those things that were (like the b/c deck hull shape) inconsistant. It makes sense that FJ would choose the more egg shaped b/c deck version from Jeffries drawings and the AMT/Constellation, because it affords more internal volume than the 3 or 11 footer does. This and other examples are not, and should not be considered, "mistakes" or "absurdities" as they were diliberate, reasoned choices on his part to choose the best working alternative from among the contradictory references. And remember, with 12 (or 13?) ships like the Enterprise in the fleet, there's room for one (the Enterprise) to look just like the 11 Foot model, and another ship like the the 3 foot model, another (the Constellation) like the AMT kit, and another (the Constitution) just as FJ drew her, and others in every concievable combination? As for this thread, my own feeling is that we should morph FJ's dimensions inline with what we now know is accurate as much as possible, correct as many actual minor internal mistakes as possible, and bow to FJ only when we feel he made the "right" choice between alternatives. IF or when, we get done, then we'll decide which of the 12 ships this is and we'll christen her accordingly.
Reconciling FJ's plans with what we now know might be a whole 'nother thread, with a whole 'nother set of arguments/flame wars. For instance, I totally reject FJ's engine layout with all power generation coming from the nacelles and Engineering up in the saucer (don't blame him for it, since he was only going by the references available at the time, and most of them are kind of iffy in retrospect), and I've got plenty of canon references to back up my stance. Aridas, on the other hand, fully embraces the concept, and has plenty of canon references to back up his stance. It's basically fandom's version of Bull Run, keeps going back and forth.
Sure, I simply meant that with what we now know of the dimensions of the 11 footer we can accurize FJ's plans in that respect, but your right, it would take a whole 'nother thread to discuss/debate FJ's tech vs what we now know of treknology. And as for the TOS engine room debate, there's just not enough info in the eps themselves to settle the matter, and what referances there were, are (yet again ) contradictory. It's kind of like reincarnation in the bible, I can read it in and someone else can read it right back out again.
I've always seen the big engine-like machinery in the TOS engine room as being engines. Since that also seemed to be the case in TMP and TNG and every other trek ever seen on screen, it never even occured to me from just watching the show that there was no engine in the TOS engine room. So I was pretty confused at FJ's plans at first. It's not that the concept of making the nacelles self-powering is all that terrible or anything, but I never got that impression.
I imagined that the Engine room was as shown in FJ's plans. The big machinery in the back were the impulse engines. The big thing on the floor was the warp core. The two large bulges house the matter and anti-matter injectors. The matter and anti-matter run up from the tanks in the engineering hull. They mix in the warp core on the impulse deck. Then the drive plasma runs back down the horizontally to the nacelle pylons. It actually makes a lot of sense layout wise considering the warp core of the Constitution-refit filled this same space. For the impulse engine to the bottom of the engineering hull then horizontally to the nacelle pylons.
Personally I'm kinda loving the idea (which popped up from Plecostomus in the now-closed thread concerning whether the reactors were in the engines) that the big machinery behind the grill in the engine room is basically an inverted V12, with a dilithium 'spark plug' at the end of each cylinder. I think I'll incorporate this into my own revised plans. However, I think to avoid a(nother) gigantic flame war in this thread, we should probably just discuss accurizing the FJ plans as laid out, with FJ's intent of in-engine power, and just leave the discussion of where the reactor was to another thread. So then, FJ more or less used the Jefferies construction plans to derive a 'fixed' side profile that doesn't really match up with the eleven-footer, and so they're basically not going to fit into any more correct drawing without some cutting. To that extent, I think the only area that needs major work besides just trimming and squeezing is at the deflector area, where the deflector 'rings' behind the dish just aren't accurately represented. Is the concensus that we should continue to use the Casmiro 11-footer drawings for this?
Yeah, I'm cool with all the above, although I was comparing the Casimiro drawings with Sinclair's, and I think they differ slightly in the deck 8-11 area with Sinclair's being al little larger in diameter than Casimiro's? This would make it more like FJ's version (although not the same), so maybe we need to figure out which is more acurate in this respect, Casimiro or Sinclair? Or maybe just use which ever ultimatly works best? But we can burn that bridge when we get to it.
Tin Man, Since you invited me to join this discussion this is just a quick note to explain I'm a bit snowed under at the moment (but -- ironically -- not literally for once), but I'll get back in the fray -- err, discussion -- ASAP.
CRA, One quick question before I go: > FJ is in blue, AMT and Casimiro in red (AMT on top, > Casimiro below). Regarding the "AMT" portion of your comparative diagram (which you seem to be implying is identical to Casimiro's diagram), is it actually the painting guide that comes with the model, or something based on the actual plastic model itself? In either case, what year is the model/guide from? The reason I ask is that I have heard over the years that the AMT saucer was made undersized, allegedly to save on material. The original secondary hull was "wrong". There have been other criticisms of how the model is "wrong", even as the model (and its accompanying documentation) has changed over the years (including at least one complete scrapping and retooling from scratch). The only version of an AMT TOS 1701 that I've heard about that allegedly even comes close to the original is the cutaway version (which is a larger model than the standard one, at a different scale, produced towards the end of AMT's original association with the franchise (before they were tossed out on their ear). So I'm puzzled that the AMT model is (in whatever incarnation) being alleged to be pretty much perfect (i.e., exactly matches one of the few high quality fan reconstructions) compared to the 11' studio model. If you could clear up what your diagram is based on (with as much detail as possible), that would be very helpful. Thank you