All those tedious debates about the size of Abrams' Enterprise (which I do not wish replay in this thread) made me think about sizes of the ships we take for granted. Sure, size of the many prime universe ships have been "known" for a long time, and used rather consistently in several publications. But if we hadn't been told that the Connie refit was 305 metres in length, would we have come to this conclusion by the screen evidence alone? http://ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/excelsior-size.htm This article on EAS discusses several aspects of Exelsior class, that do not match with the commonly accepted length of about 470 metres. One of the cues for larger size is the windows on the saucer rim. Window placement just doesn't make sense at the given size. However, Bernd dismisses this based on the fact that same problem exists in both versions of the Constitution-class. But what if one would go to the another direction, and deduce that this means that the Constitution-class size figure is wrong as well? Window placement would make more sense in 350-400 metre Connie after all, maybe we could even fit in that huge hall from TMP in the ship then as well. http://ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/jefferies.htm This article discusses about the difficulties of fitting Jefferies tubes in various ships. Again, this problem only exists because the insistence on the given ship sizes. So, as an intellectual exercise, if we would ignore commonly accepted size figures, and tried to gauge sizes of these well known ships by screen evidence alone, would we come to different conclusions? My gut feeling is that many ships would make more sense were they a bit larger. Am I alone in this? Or is the screen evidence just too inconsistent to make fair judgements?