Star Trek Warp Engines

Try using some clear sheet and see which way look better before you spray the kit parts.

Spray both sides as it will give you a deeper color.

I would just spray the inside of it. Either use Cobalt blue of clear blue. And let the glassy outside be.

William

Actually, I prefer almost an opposite approach: Spray the inner surface a clear, or even opaque, color. And then

*dullcoat* the outer surface. This gives it a pseudo "soft focus" look; similar to the red spinning nacelle caps on the TOS Enterprise.

Just caught an interesting hint on a modeler's website recently. (sorry, no link, it'd buried in my bookmarks! {g})

His suggestion was to spray the inside surface white (if not lighting the nacelle) in order to "reflect" the chosen outside color more.

I may try it, soon.

For the TOS Enterprise, I've preferred painting the bussard collectors copper, then covering that with Tamyia Clear Red. You can see my

1/1400 Enterprise in CultTVMan's gallery.

Also just recently encountered (again, for TOS) a vendor at

(Accurate Parts) who sells clear red resin bussard collectors for the 22" and 18" Enterprises. I just picked up the 22" domes from them, and not only are they gorgeous, they're a perfect fit. In fact, I'm tempted to add some lighting in this version after all, they're so nice... :)

I do have the Polar Lights 1/1000 on the shelf, but I haven't decided how to paint the clear bussard collectors on that kit. Maybe I'll just try to reproduce that lovely ruby-red.

On a similar note, I've seen several TOS build-ups where not only the main sensor dish is copper, but the inner rings of the housing as well. Can anyone point to original show screencaps which show that? Not arguing, but I don't remember that. As if that's proof. Heh.

Looks nice, though.

I seem to recall copper being called out in the AMT instructions - for whatever that's worth.

WmB

It's difficult to get a screencap that shows the rings clearly enough to identify the color. They're usually in shadow, the sensor dish is usually in the way, and the film was too grainy.

The book "Star Trek Mechanics - Official Guide 4" has an old promotional photo of the 3' studio miniature which shows the sensor dish and rings very clearly; they're a bright metallic copper. Unfortunately it's a Japanese book and currently out of print, so it's difficult to find. The same photo has appeared elsewhere, but I don't recall any specific books.

The same book also has a bunch of closeup photos of the 11' studio miniature, probably taken in the past 10 years. They show that the rings are metallic copper. You can find scans of those photos at . (Those photos were taken sometime after the miniature's latest restoration in the 1990's, so I don't entirely trust it as a color reference.)

I also have an old ST poster magazine from 1977 with an article about the

11' studio miniature. It quotes a 1974 letter from the Smithsonian describing some of the restoration work that needed to be done on the miniature after it arrived at the museum, including:

|| fabricate and install missing "dish and spike" on "main sensor" [...] || Both dish and spike are painted bronze approximating existing paint on || main sensor."

I don't trust the Smithsonian paint job, due to the various creative "adjustments" they've made over the years. Take the recent (and hideous) weathered grid markings the model now carries. Horrible!

By odd coincidence, I did encounter what I believe to be the same photos you refer to, recently.

sure enough, the rings are copper!

Mystery solved. :)

When I went back to verify I had the correct link above, I found out that

also includes many photos of actual vehicles (Apollo & the Shuttle) as well as other movies and shows, including Gerry Anderson and George Pal works. It's a nice site.

Here is a shot of the Enterprise on it's motion control armature

Definitely copper inside and out!

and another

ohhh and here is a great shot

Or here is the rest of the site

Yep, like I said, I don't entirely trust it as a color reference.

Some old "behind the scenes" photos taken under normal lighting conditions do show a hint of a grid pattern on the saucer, but just a hint. I think the current paint job is a gross exaggeration of what was originally there.

A little darker and with more scratches, but yes, it's the same photo.

The current Smithsonian scheme may be a bit exaggerated, but I feel it is representative of the final touches made on the studio model. However, during the run of the original series, very few opportunities were made to use footage of this "update", it seems. I have seen a (very) few shots from third season episodes that feature such weathering, but as in earlier episodes, most footage is older "stock footage". Remember, for the most part, the SFX outfit did *not* photograph the model(s) episode by episode....but instead did a few marathon sessions, filming a ton of footage...from which the editors then grabbed what they wanted.

Also, the colorful markings on the underside of the secondary hull, although accurate for some of the later updates to the studio model(s), are rarely (if ever) visible in any of the episode shots.

Also, keep in mind, that just like when we want to photograph our *own* models for "professional" publication...the paint job on studio models needs to be exaggerated, in order for such touches to even show up on screen, or on a photograph. Especially when dealing with SFX art at the time, where each step in the process suffered great degradation. Look at Shep Paine's work. Gorgeous in photos, but (intentionally) exaggerated "in the flesh".

So, just because the current Smithsonian paint job does not seem to match what *appears* on the TV screen...does not necessarily mean that it is inaccurate.

After reading up on the topic, and personal experience, very much agreed! My most recent 18" TOS model is (relatively) dark grey when viewed normally, and is somewhat close to the colors suggested in the CultTVMan article. On the other hand, it doesn't look anything like what we've seen on tv! Then my old theatre lighting experiences came back, and I remembered how lighting can really change the appearance of something.

So do you paint for the final product, or follow the studio coloring? I've seen some pretty garish starship paint jobs which might actually look respectable under studio fresnels. If they still use fresnels these days. :)

But, s>The current Smithsonian scheme may be a bit exaggerated, but I feel it is

{snip}

{snip}

Scott,

Please note that those are all shots of Greg Jein's 5.5' model built for DS9, hence not the original 11' model. :)

But, as I commented elsewhere, there are some shots of the original

3-footer which show the c>Here is a shot of the Enterprise on it's motion control armature

Like any other genre in our hobby...it is usually a "damned if you don't, damned if you do" thing. Do you paint for what looks "right" under your workspace lighting?...or for what looks "right" under the anticipated display conditions: display case, (usually less than adequate) show lighting, etc.? There is really no right or wrong answer, but it is something to take into consideration.

I like to take into consideration the display conditions, since, as a "figure guy", goofy fleshtones are not so forgiving...lol.

isn't a large model of the Enterprise hanging in the Smithsonian? Maybe a DC modeler could confirm the "copper" color.

Craig

That's the original 11' TV model with the "suspect" restoration that's being discussed in this thread.