TOS Class F...

[Warped9]

So this is my next thing. The Class F Galileo shuttlecraft.

This is based on my drawings I worked up several years ago. This time around I had some input from Gary Kerr helping me to make a few modifications as I build the model.



For those unfamiliar with my source matter my drawings were based primarily on the full size exterior mockup we saw onscreen in a handful of TOS episodes. This mockup was "full size" in terms of a production perspective while not actually full size in how big the real vehicle actually would be. I also considered aspects of the small 22 in. filming miniature when working up my drawings. The drawings were meant to represent an actual vehicle rather than just replicating a filming prop so with that mindset I made small tweaks to "fix" certain production shortcuts. It should be noted that Gary Kerr used a similar approach in creating his plans for the planned Round2 1/32 scale Galileo model kit. For example: the nacelles on the mockup were flared outword (at the rear and thus not parallel) to enhance a sense of forced perspective. But Gary's plans (like mine) made the nacelles parallel because that's how they were supposed to be (and as they were on the miniature). He also lifted the nose which is obviously drooping on the full size mockup, but not on the miniature. I did the same thing.

 

[Sarvek]

I am really looking forward to this!!

 

[MGagen]

I, too, will be following this with interest. I have tried to render this in 3D on two occasions, with two different programs, and have never been able to capture the geometry. For a "flying cheese box," it really has some subtle geometry going on...

Looking forward to seeing your particular take on the subject realized.

M.

 

[Warped9]

I can safely say that the geometry of the rear section (where the upper and lower sides of the craft end) is a pain in the ass. The trick, of course, is figuring out how that rear surface is supposed to look and then how to get it that way. It's relatively simple once you figure it out. That said with what I've learned over the past two years or so has allowed me to make much faster, more effective and easier progress than when I was first starting to get a handle on SketchUp.

 

[Warped9]

I have tried to render this in 3D on two occasions, with two different programs, and have never been able to capture the geometry. For a "flying cheese box," it really has some subtle geometry going on...

M.

Very true. I learned this when I first drew the shuttlecraft years ago and I learned it again even more so during my first attempt to render it in 3D about two years ago.

 

[q264]

"flying cheese box"

I knew I had seen this design before! Very well done. It simultaneously reminds me of Star Trek AND a fridge accessory.

 

[Warped9]

I'm toying with the idea of building a variant of the Class F alongside the current model. Sometime back I drew up a variant I called the Class H which was (at the time) my take on the animated scoutship idea thinking "what could TOS have managed to make as a shuttlecraft variant." Much of the Class H is the same as the Class F, mostly the main hull section. What changes are the warp nacelles, their placement and the landing gear arrangement.

 

[Sarvek]

That sounds like a fantastic idea!!

 

[Warped9]

Well my curiosty is partly satisfied. I've long wanted to know what my Class H variant could look like in 3D and here we are. I'm still working on the Class F, of course, but I'll be modeling this one alongside since they share many elements.

 

[3danim8d]

Great looking mesh!

 

[Warped9]

I should have something to post soon. I wanted to get some detail work done and one bit of detail gave me a bit of headache. Strictly speaking this can't be an exact model of the Class F because I don't have exact measurements and both the full size mockup and the miniature were production compromises. So some elements have been tweaked and cleaned up to correct production compromises so I can model a shuttlecraft rather than a television prop.

Another consideration. We only saw the full size mockup on the ground (given it was impossible to see it otherwise). The miniature was used for "in flight" shots and it differed in certain aspects from the mockup, much as the 33in. TOS E differed from the 11 footer. So in some views my model might look a bit off because it's based primarily on the mockup and we never saw it beyond a handful of angles.

I'm presently finishing up building the main landing strut which fits aft on the Class F and fits under the bow on the Class H. Then, except for markings, that will be it for the symmetrical parts of the designs. The remaining detail will be asymmetrical.

 

[Wingsley]

What are the functional differences between the "F" and the "H"?

 

[Warped9]

What are the functional differences between the "F" and the "H"?

Since the main hull is the same shell then I figure the Class H could have similar flexibility of the F in terms of swapping out seats for equipment. The main difference is the H is meant to be somewhat faster and with a longer range (since I initially inteded it as a "real world" version for the scout type ahuttlecraft we saw in TAS' "Slaver Weapon").

 

[Warped9]

The trusty Class F with the rear landing strut in place. Yes, the aft landing plate is different because it's the one I designed when I drew up my schematics some years ago. I might have to shorten (retract?) the landing strut just a wee bit, but that's minor.




One thing I can't get over is how cash strapped TOS managed to get hold of one helluva nice looking full size mockup when TNG couldn't. Probert's shuttlecraft design was really nice, but the full size mockup looked like hell. And the full size shuttlepods were truly stupid looking.

 

[BK613]

Looking good, Warped9, looking good.

 

[Albertese]

...One thing I can't get over is how cash strapped TOS managed to get hold of one helluva nice looking full size mockup when TNG couldn't. Probert's shuttlecraft design was really nice, but the full size mockup looked like hell. And the full size shuttlepods were truly stupid looking.

As I recall, the AMT model kit company covered the construction costs of both the shuttlecraft stuff and the Klingon Battlecruiser in exchange for the rights to do model kits for the show. It paid off as the 18" Enterprise was one of their best selling and longest running kits ever.

It's also why the D-7 kit was so accurate, both the shooting model and the kit were manufactured by the same company.

Now, I'm gonna say up front that this is just how I remember it... if someone knows I'm wrong, please say so.

--Alex

 

[Warped9]

^^ No, that's exactly right. And from what I understand AMT allso constructed the miniature Galileo as well as the interior. Which makes it all the more baffling that the shuttlecraft model kit AMT released sometime later was so off from what we saw onscreen.

 

[Warped9]

Class H with the forward landing strut in place. The strut is distinctly differnt from the Class F strut simply because the two are not interchangeable> So I used the original strut as a basic template to design a new one to fit the Class H design. The only common piece is the landing pad.




There is one element I am leaving off these designs: the braces under the stabilizers. They look so obvious in being there to support the structure of the mockup which was made of metal and wood. They strike me as looking out of place on something that is supposed to be built of far future materiels and construction methods.

 

[Warped9]

I've asked Gary Kerr a question: was the full size mockup painted two different coulours--light grey on the upper hull and a darker tone on the lower hull and nacelles?

The miniature certainly looked like it was two different colours.

Or was it a trick of studio lighting?

 

[Warped9]

Got my answer. Apparently Gene Winfield painted the mockup all one colour (light grey), but the studio then painted the lower hull and nacelles a darker tone.