This should be a fun build featuring everybody's favorite - vacu-form plastic!
This version came out around the year 2000, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the original Estes kit from 1975.
Back then I built both the Klingon Battle Cruiser and the Enterprise. I liked this one better, the Enterprise was dragged behind a long, parachute "probe" tube. The Klingon model flew by itself.
There wasn't many parts in the big box.
The parts of interest:
Metallic foil trim
Two BT-2 drive unit support tubes
Two pats of clay nose weight, one is 1/2 oz., the other 1/4 oz.
The vacu-form plastic sheet.
This kit had an added "Special Value! -
Includes all the Testor's paint necessary to complete this kit."
A $9.10 Retail Value!
I had the Klingon Cruiser kit and the USS Enterprise kit. Never got around to flying them however. One thing that I did find interesting about the first appearance in the catalog (IIRC it was around 1975), the Klingon Cruiser kit looked quite different (I presume it was probably one of the prototypes), and the Enterprise kit looked sort of like a hybrid of the model rocket kit and the existing plastic model kit from AMT (one thing that always seemed to not change during the time when the was listed in the catalog -- the "notch" or depression on the underside of the saucer was never depicted in the catalog images).
ReplyDeleteI did pick up a few examples of the anniversary-edition Enterprise and Klingon Cruiser kits back when Toys-R-Us was clearing out their Estes kits.
Apparently the Estes kit was exactly the same size as the AMT kit, and for a while the Estes kits were apparently sought out for the decal sheet -- which was apparently more accurate than those offered in the plastic kit (at least until the most reissues which feature more accurate decals).
A mishap with the Enterprise kit falling off the shelf caused it to sustain damage to one of the nacelles and the secondary hull. Ended up cutting apart the kit to salvage what I could and used the salvaged parts to build a single-nacelle destroyer class ship (which never appeared in the series, and only appeared in the Franz Joseph book "Star Fleet Technical Manual").
Hi Naoto,
DeleteI wasn't aware that the AMT model was the same size as the Estes Enterprise. Estes probably used that as an example for modeling.
The first kit appearances in catalogs are often different. Take a look at the R2D2 http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/78est030.html. The fins (legs) are a "T" shape, not clear plastic extensions in the production kit.
I remember the round "trough" under the model to fit the BT-50 "probe" tube. The catalog pictures don't show it.
There were two basic reasons why I never flew the USS Enterprise nor Klingon Cruiser models. First was they looked rather draggy and were pretty heavy models. Second was the tail-first landing would likely mean some amount of damage upon landing. Perhaps one might be able to rig the recovery system on the Klingon Cruiser for horizontal orientation for landing (using configuration similar to what was found on a number of Centuri kits and on the X-30 kit from Quest Aerospace), though rigging something similar on the Enterprise kit would be a bit harder.
DeleteHi Naoto,
DeleteGood point about rigging the Klingon Cruiser for a horizontal descent. I did that on my Quest X-30 model. Interesting thing about the X-30 - the face card shows a horizontal rigging. The instructions barely mention it but don't show you how to do it.
One of the weirdest things that I'd encountered with the Estes USS Enterprise kit was that when viewed from certain angles, the nacelles looked like they were at odd angles. It would look fine if viewed from straight ahead, side view, and top/bottom views, but at oblique angles the nacelles would look splayed out or drooping. You could place the model upside-down on a flat surface, then take measurements and you'd verify that everything is aligned -- but yet at certain oblique angles it would look wrong (especially when compared against what you saw on the sdcreen). Apparently it has something to do with the shape of the nacelles -- the nacelles in the Estes kit lack the distinct taper found on the 11-foot and 3-foot filming miniatures.
ReplyDeleteHi Naoto,
DeleteI've had a few models that looked "off" when the alignment was actually correct. You're right, the Estes kit nacelles didn't taper like the TV Enterprise. If they did, the long tapered shrouds would have made it a Level 6.
Looking forward to this build. I managed to score one of these a year or so back, but it's sitting in the build queue.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, before the advent of do-it-yourself decals and high-quality custom decals, the Estes Enterprise decal sheet was the 'go-to' for anyone who wanted to build the AMT kit with any degree of authenticity.
Hi Phill,
DeleteI found the Ebay receipt. I got one for $9.95! The shipping was more than what I paid for the kit.
Naoto's comment said the same thing about the AMT versus Estes decals.
I've always wanted to see how this rocket was built. Thank you for choosing it.
ReplyDelete