New Polar Lights NCC-1701 Refit

[Boxer]

Forget the Enterprise, When I get mine I'll have to kitbash the 1017-A. (Kudos to those who know that one).

[Amped]

Forget the Enterprise, When I get mine I'll have to kitbash the 1017-A. (Kudos to those who know that one).

Ah yes, good ol' 1017-A... Commodore Decker's Constellation, Enterprise's Constitution-class progenitor right? .. the one munched-on by the 'The Doomsday Machine', aka the intergalactic waffle-cone of DOOM! There are supposed to be internal & external difference between the two sister ships right? ... the Enterprise being the more advanced (newer of the two). Does anyone have a definitive list of those differences??? I've heard Constellation may have been slightly smaller. Any known line art or models???

[cobywan]

A gentleman at HobbyTalk pumped the FX miniature painter for som more information. It is a very techie thread in technique but very usefull;

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=86068

[David Hingtgen]

Actually, that's lightsheet. I think NOW you can get small flourescents cheaply enough to do an Excelsior, but even just 2 years ago it wasn't practical.

[Boxer]

In just about every source I know the Constellation is another Consitution class CA. It's my beleif that it's a Command Cruiser instead of a regular CA, which means heavier armanent and a rear phaser. It would also explain why Decker is in command of a heavier ship.

But that's for Starfleet battles terminology. I don't know what Paramount says about it- as far as they're concerned the only 'constellation' they know of is TNG's freaky four engined thing.

And the Constellation was pretty much an old enterprise kit with rearranged numbers. it was 'Attacked' by a sodering iron and the result was what you saw on screen.

I always wanted to know what a Constellation-A would look like. Aside from the modded model I have in SFC, now's my chance to make an accurate model of it. I just either need to paint the designation on by hand or find a decail set to make it.

[captain america]

I read Olsen's painting article for the big E. However, I'd seriously consider against using high-build primer on the kit; you'd completely drown & ruin the detail. They used high-build because the original was a fiberglass laminate, which (probably)needed a lot of touch-ups & putty.

If anything, I'd recommend an automotive epoxy primer... You can get those in white, and it's extremely thin. You could litterally apply your pearls directly onto the primer after a bit of wet-sanding.

[cobywan]

Well duh! The description was describing the hell they went through to get a decent surface on the FX miniature. I wouldn't think much of a primer would be necessary on a styrene kit. The finnish on the NX-01 kit was nice so the only issue is to get paint to stick. A good scrubbing with Bonami is all I use. And the Polar Lights styrene is very sensative to lacquers anyway.

I have been suggesting people use the pearlescant powders into thier preferred clear medium. The description in that thread is a lot more descriptive than what was on Olsen's personal web page for years already.

[Radd]

Well, I did finally pick up the Art Asylum Enterprise A, decided to order it off of Amazon after a relatively successful Otakon. To be sure, it does not stack up against either the Polar Lights or the Bandai model kits, but for those of us that just aren't into building models it's a godsend.

Very pretty toy, very detailed....for a toy. Model fans might look at the seams and gaps, and the tacky "Lights and Sound Action!" and moan, but as a toy it ranks highly.

I'm already contemplating taking mine apart and figuring out if I can rewire the electronics so I could just turn the lights on and off, without the blinking or the craptacular sound effects. I'd love to have it sitting on my desk with the lights on, and staying on until I turned them off or the batteries ran out.

As per all reviews, the stand does suck...a lot. I can get it on the ball joint easily enough, and it holds really well...but the stand itself wobbles endlessly, as if just looking at the ship is enough to send it swaying back and forth.

[Dobber]

Update: For anyone that cares, there is Good News and Bad News.

Good News is that it is still coming!

Bad News is that it's pushed back to January 2005.

Chris

[B-52 GUNNER]

Well I picked up the 1/350 scale Polar Lights NCC-1701-A yesterday and all I can say is it's HUGE!!!!

Now I need to find a place to put it when I finish it.

Scot

[haro genki]

Got two of them back in May. Haven't worked on them much. They've both been sitting in my closet. I'm waiting until I get I feel safe enough with my modeling skills to work on it.

Most I did was a test fit just to see how big this sucker really was, wasn't disappointed either

When the funds get a little better, I intend to light one of the two. But with school expenses, that might not be easy

[promethuem5]

Is this an interior shot of the kit or from teh movie... I haven't seen any of the movies in a while. Looks like a sweet kit.

[haro genki]

Is this an interior shot of the kit or from teh movie... I haven't seen any of the movies in a while.  Looks like a sweet kit.

341279[/snapback]

That was an illustration used during the film's production. The interior of the kit (the shuttle/cargobay) was modeled after that, actually

[ComicKaze]

For this scale, they should have had internal lighting. They've had it for smaller scales.

[ComicKaze]

In just about every source I know the Constellation is another Consitution class CA. It's my beleif that it's a Command Cruiser instead of a regular CA, which means heavier armanent and a rear phaser. It would also explain why Decker is in command of a heavier ship.

But that's for Starfleet battles terminology. I don't know what Paramount says about it- as far as they're concerned the only 'constellation' they know of is TNG's freaky four engined thing.

I'm guessing Picard's Stargazer was a Constellation class from the Excelsior era.

And the Constellation was pretty much an old enterprise kit with rearranged numbers. it was 'Attacked' by a sodering iron and the result was what you saw on screen.

I always wanted to know what a Constellation-A would look like. Aside from the modded model I have in SFC, now's my chance to make an accurate model of it. I just either need to paint the designation on by hand or find a decail set to make it.

180302[/snapback]

What's a CA?

Edited November 1, 2005 by ComicKaze

[Zentrandude]

superglue?

[Stamen0083]

Constellation A.

PS: Anyone interested in the Polar Lights NX-01 kit? Barely opened.

[Boxer]

Stamen: No. CA is officially Armored Cruiser, but nowadays everyone calls it a Heavy Cruiser. I think the enterprise line always held the Heavy cruiser designation until the D version, where it was upgraded to luxry line...um...'explorer'.

Picard's constellation honestly enough was supposed to be a Constitution refit instead of the four-nacelled excuse they have now. They even had to dub over Geordi's line in that episode to fit it in. Apparenlty the staff was too lazy to pull out and redetail the Enterprise model for the shot- even though they did it countless times with the excelsior and reliant models.

[haro genki]

SSM has posted a review of the kit --

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/trek/pm_refit.htm

[Nied]

Stamen: No. CA is officially Armored Cruiser, but nowadays everyone calls it a Heavy Cruiser. I think the enterprise line always held the Heavy cruiser designation until the D version, where it was upgraded to luxry line...um...'explorer'.

Picard's constellation honestly enough was supposed to be a Constitution refit instead of the four-nacelled excuse they have now. They even had to dub over Geordi's line in that episode to fit it in. Apparenlty the staff was too lazy to pull out and redetail the Enterprise model for the shot- even though they did it countless times with the excelsior and reliant models.

341519[/snapback]

It's not so much that they were to lazy it was more that ILM (who did the first season FX for TNG) hated the Constitution model. It wasn't built by them and thus didn't have the kind of access doors and mounts they normally try to build into their models. Even the gloss on flat paint scheme reeked havok with their bluescreen compositing techniques (which is why after STII it has a more uniform matte paint).

[B-52 GUNNER]

Has anyone here built this kit yet?

If so, How about some pics?

[haro genki]

SSM has a few in their reader gallery

http://www.starshipmodeler.org/gallery10/tj_enterprise.htm Personal favorite... managed to capture the TMP look very accurately

[Greyryder]

Stamen: No. CA is officially Armored Cruiser, but nowadays everyone calls it a Heavy Cruiser. I think the enterprise line always held the Heavy cruiser designation until the D version, where it was upgraded to luxry line...um...'explorer'.

Picard's constellation honestly enough was supposed to be a Constitution refit instead of the four-nacelled excuse they have now. They even had to dub over Geordi's line in that episode to fit it in. Apparenlty the staff was too lazy to pull out and redetail the Enterprise model for the shot- even though they did it countless times with the excelsior and reliant models.

341519[/snapback]

It's not so much that they were to lazy it was more that ILM (who did the first season FX for TNG) hated the Constitution model. It wasn't built by them and thus didn't have the kind of access doors and mounts they normally try to build into their models. Even the gloss on flat paint scheme reeked havok with their bluescreen compositing techniques (which is why after STII it has a more uniform matte paint).

341738[/snapback]

Really? I was under the impression that they had built their own model for Enterprise A. I know I remember reading an article, where they said that they enjoyed blowing the model in ST3, because of the problems the glossy paint cause them with the bluescreen shots.

[phoenix01]

When I look on Polar Lights' website, there's no mention of it. Or I'm blind, one or the other.

[Noriko Takaya]

I will be getting one of these. Oh yes, I will have it...

[VF-19]

I will be getting one of these. Oh yes, I will have it...

344825[/snapback]

And I'm way ahead of you. Picked it up as soon as I saw it at my local hobby shop. However, due to its size, and the trickyness of the paint scheme, I'm going to hold off on building it until perhaps next year. I really really need to re-organize my work space. And not build 3-4 kits at the same time...