1:2500 SPRINGFIELD

[Kratok]

Normal wish list-
2500th scale Springfield- hopefully once the New Orleans is produced the same crew will offer the Springfield, as the saucer is the same.

Jason, I stole your post above from elsewhere on the site to serve as the launching point for this thread. I hope you don't mind. I've read in several other places online that people want a copy of this ship. And, as you noticed, the New Orleans saucer can be re-utilized (with some modifications) - a fact that was also not lost on me. In fact, the saucer can be used for SEVERAL ships - all probably too obscure to catch the attention of the larger kit manufacturers.

We've had no feedback yet on the New Orleans, but I hope people will be happy with the final effort. On the assumption that that will be the case, I wanted to probe the waters regarding the possibility of a 2500 scale Springfield.



It may be premature, but it will take me time to build this. I also want this one to be designed as a kit out of the gate, instead of retrofitted like the New Orleans. The final design should reflect what the end customer wants, and not just my visions. So, I've made this a "sticky", with hopes that it will become a 'Work In Progress' Thread, and give us an interval between releases. I suspect GMeister (If he continues to be willing to market these) will also need a break, but I think there will be enough development time working through a thread like this to let him catch his breath.

I have been gathering materials, started the general layout, and have developed some resultant questions that will shape how I design the kit. I want to ask a couple at a time, let them run their course, show progress, and move to the next couple of questions.

So speak up! Let's make this one what YOU want it to be.

Here we go!
Question 1:
Is there enough interest to warrant doing this one as a kit?
Question (Set)2:
What is the perceived role of this ship?
Why TWO pods?
What are your thoughts as to the function of the pods?
Should the underslung pod be removeable? A "Mission Specific" kind of module like on the DS9 Runabouts?

[Gmeister]

Removable under slung pod. I like that and gmeister is ready to produce it but I understand his wife needs a break which will occur as Kratok works on the master

[Jason Abbadon]

I'm DEFINITELY interested!
As to the odd pd thing- the Springfield was only ever displayed by Mike Okuda for two photos- one has the pod and one does not.
It looks a hundred times better without it!

As to the in-universe explanation, the underslung pod could have been a prototype anti-Borg deflector weapon which either did not work right or never got the chance to be fired before the ship's destruction.

Bernd at EAS has the best pics and breakdowns on the Springfiels model- it's pod is much more boxy and cool looking than the diagram you've got linked in the above post- Bernd calls it the "coffin pod" nad you can see why:
https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/artic ... gfield.htm

Ercksmodels has a fantastic build up on the Springfield and I'd use that for reference in mastering the ship:
https://www.ericksmodels.com/gallery/ski ... inner.html
He named it the USS Skinner after the famous principal of Springfield Elementary School. Great name choice.
https://www.ericksmodels.com/gallery/ski ... nner10.jpg
https://www.ericksmodels.com/gallery/ski ... inner1.jpg
https://www.ericksmodels.com/gallery/ski ... inner7.jpg
https://www.ericksmodels.com/gallery/ski ... inner8.jpg
https://www.ericksmodels.com/gallery/ski ... inner2.jpg
https://www.ericksmodels.com/gallery/ski ... inner9.jpg
https://www.ericksmodels.com/gallery/ski ... inner6.jpg

It would be great to stick a large Galaxy class sized shuttlebay door on the rear of the pod- making that one big shuttlebay...possibly with a torpedo launcher at the forward facing end.
Hope this is helpful!

[Scotchyn]

Id be up for it!

[Lonewolf]

The only Springfield kit I've ever seen was one offered by Ravenstar years ago in 1:1400. I'd love to have one in the Sacred Scale to add to my fleet.

[Frank Fowler]

I was hoping you might consider the Springfield after the New Orleans was done. I would take two or three kits. I have one of Ravenstars' 1/1400 scale kits and it is nice. He did a more rectangular coffin pod like the model of the Skinner that Jason posted. I think the more rectangular version looks better. The coffin pod on the Ravenstar kit has hanger bays in the stern and torpedo tubs forward. I also think it should have the lower pod as an option to leave on or off.

When I cast parts for my Challenger Class Armstrong (Buran type from Wolf 359), I cast extra parts to try and cobble together a Springfield. I also picked up some extra Cheyenne nacelles from Odyssey Slipways for the kit. I have never gotten around to building the coffin pod or starting to put the castings together. I guess I will wait for your effort because it will be much better than mine. Photos of my Armstrong/Buran are linked over on the other site. I guess I should try and post photos of some of my finished 1/2500 models over here.

Thanks for your and Gmeister's efforts in getting the New Orleans out. I think my order shipped today and am very much looking forward to receiving it.

[Kratok]

Thanks for the input.

So, the more angular coffin in favor of the more rounded version? That is a surprise to me. I thought the flowing, organic lines of the Galaxy saucer might work better with a more rounded pod. Angular it will be.

I like the idea of the upper pod as a shuttlebay of some kind. I will proceed along those lines, unless I get different suggestions.

Jason, I also like the idea of the lower pod being a prototype weapons system. The whole rig looks like it is jettisonable anyway, it crowds the Captain's Yacht to the point that it becomes unusable, etc. Like you, I enjoy a logical backstory, and the idea of the pod being an add-on would allow me to display the model without the pod (nice looking ship) or with the pod (butt-ugly ship).
Maybe both?

The primary and secondary hulls of the master are both mated, and blended. That has raised a few more questions, though, that I need to resolve before sharing images:

1. The saucer impulse engines blow DIRECTLY back into the nacelle pylons. Not a good design. Fixable if we make the saucer impulse engines as backup for saucer separation only, and a larger primary impulse engine at the rear of the ship - probably on the pylon supporting the pod. Does this work?

2. Saucer separation = how? The original Galaxy half-oval at the top of the dorsal (the Battle Head) is a logical separation point for the bottom of the saucer. However, I am having a hard time knowing where to split things on the top. Should we make this one a ship that does not separate, and if so, what do we do about the impulse engines? Thoughts?

Looking forward to your input.

[Del]

My vote, since you were asking for the input, is that if the studio kitbash has impulse engines in place, I say leave them on the kit regardless of whether it's a good design or not, it's a canon thing. I don't think saucer seperation is necessary, especially if the bottom pod is detachable. I like the way Ravenstar executed this ship, especially the upper pod (looks like a shuttlebay), and since we aren't really able to see the back in the studio model, it's left open for interpretation. Ravenstar blog from 2006 shows the Springfield starting with the 12th photo down.

There's my take on it.

[Frank Fowler]

I agree with Del. The impluse outlets should remain as shown on the plans and I don't think the smaller ships should have separation ability. Thanks for asking.

[Lonewolf]

Another vote for "leave it the way it is" and "no saucer separation". I can't see the reason for smaller ships to have saucer separation capability. On a ship the size of the Enterprise-D, it makes sense for evacuating the crew. Smaller ships have smaller crews. And with the nacelles being part of the upper hull, on this design it makes no sense. The secondary hull doesn't have propulsion on the Springfield.