Sizes of the Klingon D7 and K't'inga battle cruisers

[Lord Other]

Hello folks, I wanted to get some feedback and thoughts on some ideas I've been toying with, namely readdressing the size of the Klingon D7 and K't'inga battle cruisers as seen in TOS, TMP, and TUC. While I know there are those folks who will stringently adhere to the franchise provided stats and dims, (understanding and acknowledging that in most cases the original source material is none other than Matt Jefferies himself), this discussion thread is to serve as a possible alternate viewpoint to that, based on visual cues and evidence to the contrary. That said I wish to acknowledge @goose814's earlier thread and contributions in this same vein, danke.

We'll get some controversial stuff out of the way- for the sake of discussion I am assuming that the length of the original E that Phil Broad came up with, 1084' is either accurate for mechanical reasons, or close to it. Using that as a benchmark and utilizing the window separation distances from deck to deck, and the relative Command Hull thickness to that of the Primary Hull on the Enterprise, the following dimensions would seem to be accurate if utilizing the Custom Replicas figures as a base for the D7 Klingon Battle Cruiser.

Scaling the Enterprise to 1084 pixels (for feet) and then taking Goose814's D7 profile schematic view yields a length of 858 pixels (I don't believe I had to rescale his picture as I recall), which in turn I applied against the Custom Replicas 3D model dimensions which were as follows..

D7 Custom Replicas Dimensions
Length: 28.625" Beam: 7.226" Width: 19.75"

858' ÷ 28.625" = 29.9737991266 for upscaling

D7
Length: 858' / 261.51 m
Beam: 216.59' / 66.01 m
Width: 591.98' / 180.44 m

I utilized a similar process for the K't'inga and got the following by taking Goose814's K't'inga profile view (again no rescaling was required) and compared that to Petri Blomqvist's Enterprise profile view and got the following results.

K't'inga
Length: 849' / 258.78 m
Beam: 227' / 69.09 m
Width: 603.37' / 183.91 m

This is much shorter than the 349.54 m figure from the Deep Space Nine Technical Manual, but still a great deal larger than the 214.3 m figure from the David Kimble's TMP blueprints. I feel the adjusted figures would allow for, and make a great deal more sense for deck spacing per the window arrangements of both models, and allow for a more workable shuttlecraft landing bay, even if it is dinky compared to that of the Enterprise. Thoughts?

 

[StarCruiser]

Well - knowing the history of the TOS E, those seem reasonable.

The original Enterprise was supposed to be 540' long, with a crew of 203 but, Gene decided that that was too small for a long range explorer (probably correct) and had Matt Jefferies revise the ship. Matt's (logical) thought was to simply double it's size and make it 1080' long with a crew of over 400 and Gene decided that was too big (?!?).

Therefore, we got 947' feet (which was as close to practical as Matt could make it without Gene fussing about the size) and still had the crew at over 400 once the show really started.

If we go back to Matt's original rescaling of the ship to 1080' (1084' is close enough) then, yes - the Klingon ships should be larger as well and I would expect them to be proportionally so.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

The original Enterprise was supposed to be 540' long, with a crew of 203 but, Gene decided that that was too small for a long range explorer (probably correct) and had Matt Jefferies revise the ship. Matt's (logical) thought was to simply double it's size and make it 1080' long with a crew of over 400 and Gene decided that was too big (?!?).

Wait, is this brand-new fact-checked information and if so, from which source(s)? All I’ve seen so far is confirmation that it was about half the size before (according to early plans and tiny callouts that remained on the miniature), but the simple doubling has been speculation and I’ve never heard that 947 feet was specifically requested by Roddenberry.

 

[StarCruiser]

Gene didn't specifically ask for 947' - it's just what he settled on when Matt presented his final draft...

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Gene didn't specifically ask for 947' - it's just what he settled on when Matt presented his final draft...

I’m curious where you got that entire story from, since all I’ve seen confirmed so far is the original 1:48 scale for a planned 135-inch ship = 540 feet, which was followed by 947 feet in the famous schematics that ended up in The Making of Star Trek, but you’re also citing a specific sequence of events where a) Roddenberry asked for a larger ship b) Jefferies specifically doubled the length c) Roddenberry thought that was too big d) Roddenberry settled on 947 feet.

 

[Lord Other]

I’m curious where you got that entire story from, since all I’ve seen confirmed so far is the original 1:48 scale for a planned 135-inch ship = 540 feet, which was followed by 947 feet in the famous schematics that ended up in The Making of Star Trek, but you’re also citing a specific sequence of events where a) Roddenberry asked for a larger ship b) Jefferies specifically doubled the length c) Roddenberry thought that was too big d) Roddenberry settled on 947 feet.

I believe that is outlined somewhere in The Making of Star Trek but I don't have one handy to look it up. Again though, the original post is not arguing whether 947' is an accurate figure- the post's benchmark is we are working from a 1084' or thereabouts length for the TOS E.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

I believe that is outlined somewhere in The Making of Star Trek but I don't have one handy to look it up. Again though, the original post is not arguing whether 947' is an accurate figure- the post's benchmark is we are working from a 1084' or thereabouts length for the TOS E.

It’s not in The Making of Star Trek. I’m just trying to dismantle potential (second-hand) speculation here (including that 1080+ foot figure) since reality can be complicated and we don’t want people building castles in the air on the basis of fanmyth.

Regarding the original battlecruiser, what’s interesting is this diagram here which is fairly illegible but may suggest a length of 624 feet at a scale of 1 inch = 22 feet, or a model length of just over 28 inches.

 

[Lord Other]

It’s not in The Making of Star Trek. I’m just trying to dismantle potential (second-hand) speculation here (including that 1080+ foot figure) since reality can be complicated and we don’t want people building castles in the air on the basis of fanmyth.

Regarding the original battlecruiser, what’s interesting is this diagram here which is fairly illegible but may suggest a length of 624 feet at a scale of 1 inch = 22 feet, or a model length of just over 28 inches.

So, instead of adding to a discussion, your attempting to kill it. Good on you for being soooo broad minded. I have news for you my friend, the entire fandom of Star Trek is built on fiction, not fact. If you are not adding anything constructive I'll just ignore you from here on out, and leave you be to rail as you so desire. Live long and prosper.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

So, instead of adding to a discussion, your attempting to kill it. Good on you for being soooo broad minded. I have news for you my friend, the entire fandom of Star Trek is built on fiction, not fact. If you are not adding anything constructive I'll just ignore you from here on out, and leave you be to rail as you so desire. Live long and prosper.

You’re utterly confusing Star Trek as fiction with Star Trek as a real-world franchise with a real-world production history that must be fact-checked to dismantle fanmyth.

 

[valkyrie013]

Ds9 Manuel is utter garbage.. No scale or lenths are right in that abomination..

 

[StarCruiser]

There have been discussions on this site about the subject - some participants no longer are active here (or banned etc...). There we some articles online on the subject as well though, I haven't been able to find them lately (the "intertubes" being what they are).

I believe someone had mentioned an old article where Matt himself had stated that the size had gone back and forth for awhile until they settled on 947' as the official number.

This was then confirmed onscreen (The Enterprise Incident) with a chart comparing the "Starship Class" to the Klingon Battlecruiser being used by the Romulans...

 

[goose814]

Hello folks, I wanted to get some feedback and thoughts on some ideas I've been toying with, namely readdressing the size of the Klingon D7 and K't'inga battle cruisers as seen in TOS, TMP, and TUC. While I know there are those folks who will stringently adhere to the franchise provided stats and dims, (understanding and acknowledging that in most cases the original source material is none other than Matt Jefferies himself), this discussion thread is to serve as a possible alternate viewpoint to that, based on visual cues and evidence to the contrary. That said I wish to acknowledge @goose814's earlier thread and contributions in this same vein, danke.

We'll get some controversial stuff out of the way- for the sake of discussion I am assuming thatthe length of the original E that Phil Broad came up with, 1084' is either accurate for mechanical reasons, or close to it. Using that as a benchmark and utilizing the window separation distances from deck to deck, and the relative Command Hull thickness to that of the Primary Hull on the Enterprise, the following dimensions would seem to be accurate if utilizing the Custom Replicas figures as a base for the D7 Klingon Battle Cruiser.

Scaling the Enterprise to 1084 pixels (for feet) and then taking Goose814's D7 profile schematic view yields a length of 858 pixels (I don't believe I had to rescale his picture as I recall), which in turn I applied against the Custom Replicas 3D model dimensions which were as follows..

D7 Custom Replicas Dimensions
Length: 28.625" Beam: 7.226" Width: 19.75"

858' ÷ 28.625" = 29.9737991266 for upscaling

D7
Length: 858' / 261.51 m
Beam: 216.59' / 66.01 m
Width: 591.98' / 180.44 m

I utilized a similar process for the K't'inga and got the following by taking Goose814's K't'inga profile view (again no rescaling was required) and compared that to Petri Blomqvist's Enterprise profile view and got the following results.

K't'inga
Length: 849' / 258.78 m
Beam: 227' / 69.09 m
Width: 603.37' / 183.91 m

This is much shorter than the 349.54 m figure from the Deep Space Nine Technical Manual, but still a great deal larger than the 214.3 m figure from the David Kimble's TMP blueprints. I feel the adjusted figures would allow for, and make a great deal more sense for deck spacing per the window arrangements of both models, and allow for a more workable shuttlecraft landing bay, even if it is dinky compared to that of the Enterprise. Thoughts?

Just came across this thread and saw that I was referenced to. Cool. Anyway, looking forward to where this leads and also, I went back and reloaded the images in the previous thread that were lost after the Photobucket fiasco several years ago located here:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/size-of-the-ktinga-class.101331/

 

[Tenacity]

I am assuming tha tthe length of the original E that Phil Broad came up with, 1084' is either accurate for mechanical reasons, or close to it.

I'll stick with 947 feet because I can't see any reason to do otherwise.

Scaling the Enterprise to 1084 pixels (for feet) and then taking Goose814's D7 profile schematic view yields a length of 858 pixels

Using 947 feet for the Enterprise, and using your 0.792% makes the Klingon D-7 about 750 feet (749.56). Using the published 214 meters for the K'Tinga makes it about 700 feet (701.92). The K'Tinga is smaller than the D-7.

Klingon battle crusiers aren't equal parts explorers, they're dedicated warships.

My view, no 14 science labs, no individual living quarters for the majority of the officers, no entire decks devoted to cargo holds, no expansive flight deck, no corridors with abundent head room. We've seen the insides of Klingon ships, they're cramped.

The ships can be smaller, and still do what they're designed to do. Dispite their unequal size, the Klingon battle crusier is comparable to the Constitution class, at least in the area of combat.

 

[Mysterion]

My view, no 14 science labs, no individual living quarters for the majority of the officers, no entire decks devoted to cargo holds, no expansive flight deck, no corridors with abundent head room. We've seen the insides of Klingon ships, they're cramped.

I agree. Think less Princess Cruise Lines and more Los Angeles class attack sub. The Klingons go more for "form follows function" than "let's make this comfy and pretty".

 

[Lord Other]

Just came across this thread and saw that I was referenced to. Cool. Anyway, looking forward to where this leads and also, I went back and reloaded the images in the previous thread that were lost after the Photobucket fiasco several years ago located here:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/size-of-the-ktinga-class.101331/

Hey Goose! Nice to see you pop in, and thanks for re-linking the pics, I too suffered from the Photobucket Stupocalypse. Sometime next week I'll post a cross-section from my D-7 blues I'm working on at the moment. I would like your input on some ideas I've been working on, but also how it will directly relate to some unresolved and unaddressed issues on the K't'inga that are glaringly obvious if you know where to look for them. For the folks at home I'll give you all a hint..

I'll stick with 947 feet because I can't see any reason to do otherwise.

The Klingons go more for "form follows function" than "let's make this comfy and pretty".

With all due respect to @Tenacity and your opinions @Mysterion, this discussion had nothing to do with trying to upscale the design to make it more versatile, or to even "make this comfy" - it is a exercise in what the mechanical / engineering aspects of upscaling a design to conform with a TOS E in the 1080' -1084' size range (as was implicitly stated at the outset) and what would result if taken in context with the model itself. Please keep that in mind, and not hijack the thread with pontificating about the virtues of one scale over the other. If you wish to start your own thread debating the merits of the TOS E being 947' vs 1080'-ish, or how there's no need for the D-7 or the K't'inga to be upscaled because there's no direct onscreen evidence (in your opinion) that would merit it, go right ahead. I'm not stopping you, and in fact I would probably be joining in on that discussion. I would like to keep comments and posts focused on the topic as presented, thank you.

 

[Tenacity]

Ah no, when you start a thread you don't get to then dictate what other can and can't post, or what their opinions are allowed to be.

Lord Other, you will get counter-positions to your positions.

Please keep that in mind

It not up to you to tell others what to keep in mind.

and not hijack the thread

That's isn't what happening, you've been here for some three years now, that's long enough for you to know that's not what's happening.

 

[diankra]

At the risk of stating the obvious, whatever Jeffries intended in 64/65/66, he designed the D7 in 68, when the 947 length was 'canon'.

 

[Tenacity]

The scale in the upper right corner is 200 feet. The image was on screen for several seconds, the audience was intended to get a good long look at it, solid canon.

Jadzia Dax: "They really packed them in on these old ships."

 

[Lord Other]

Lord Other, you will get counter-positions to your positions.It not up to you to tell others what to keep in mind.

True, and I appreciate feedback. My sincere apology for overstepping my position, apparently. I should have stated.. "I will ask that folks not hijack the thread with pontificating about the virtues of one scale over the other."
I can, and will _ask_.

As I stated, I was trying to focus on the topic at hand (using a scale other than canon), rather than solicit a morass of repetitive statements about what is canon, which again, I acknowledged at the outset. I apologize to you and to any reader who is so offended by my phrasing, or that I was not more clear. I guess that _I _will need to keep that in mind when, or if I ever start another thread on TrekBBS.

..and in reference to my comment about not hijacking the thread..

That's isn't what happening, you've been here for some three years now, that's long enough for you to know that's not what's happening.

Really? Hmmm. I will agree to disagree. Having lurked here for a great deal of time before I started posting I can recall quite a number of Tech threads that were going along just fine to only be derailed by helpful sorts who wanted to remind others of some point of fact, or opinion. While we are at it, why don't you count up the number of posts (including yours) where the person commenting is stating that Jefferies intended size for the TOS E is 947'. Go ahead, I'll wait.

The scale in the upper right corner is 200 feet. The image was on screen for several seconds, the audience was intended to get a good long look at it, _solid canon_.

- emphasis added.

Thank you for reminding me about that, again. So again, just to remind those who came in late..

While I know there are those folks who will stringently adhere to the franchise provided stats and dims, (understanding and acknowledging that in most cases the original source material is none other than Matt Jefferies himself), this discussion thread is (INTENDED to) serve as a possible alternate viewpoint to that, based on visual cues and evidence to the contrary.

-the material in the parenthesis is of course added in, or retconned after I had posted my initial statement, much like the following quote..

Jadzia Dax: "They really packed them in on these old ships."

Thank you again.

 

[Tenacity]

As I stated, I was trying to focus on the topic at hand (using a scale other than canon),

And of course no one is stopping you, you really didn't get into what your theory was.