View Full Version : Bonaventure TAS

August 24th, 2001, 07:24 PM
Here's a schematic of Bonaventure I did for a guy over at Flare Forums. This is a straight rendition of the ship as it appears in the animated series, but I think the nacelles should be lowered and the registry should be on the mound rather than on the flat part of the disc. (I also slightly screwed up the nacelle support on the front view.)


August 24th, 2001, 08:17 PM
Wow you did a really cool job of it!

Have you seen the rendition done at the animated trek site? It looks alot like yours.


Just remember the windows will probably look bigger, since this is a smaller ship than enterprise.

By the way, you might wanna to think about incorporating a teardrop like shape in the saucer. Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries seem to like that shape. To them it denoted a futuristic and fast qualities. ;)

August 24th, 2001, 09:02 PM
Thanks, Thomas. The guy who asked me to draw this (Monkey of Mim) sent me that picture as a resource, but when I compared it to the screen cap, I found some of the details were off. So, I tried to follow the screen image as much as possible. The shape of top mound (is there a technical term for this?) on the primary hull is just inset from the larger dish, but a teardrop shape might look cool considering its profile tapers to the rear. However, a teardrop would leave a lot of flat open space at 4:30 and 7:30. The impulse deck would probably also need to be made more narrow side to side.

I scaled this out on the basis of the primary hull thickness. If the dish edge is 2 decks thick, as on Constitution, this ship is about 220 m long, vs 300 m for Constitution. I actually used windows from my Constitution schematic for this ship. So I think that comparison floating around somewhere which shows Bonaventure as being about half the size of Enterprise is also a bit off.

I posted this schematic in the hopes that one of you TAS'ers would make a model of her! I'm also thinking of modifying this design a bit and adding it to my museum.

August 24th, 2001, 10:20 PM
How about posting a fram cap of the real thing to give someone a head start?

August 25th, 2001, 12:18 AM
This is a bigger version of the cap on the page Thomas linked to above:

August 25th, 2001, 04:52 PM
Cool! I have always wanted to try modeling this ship from TAS.

How does a circular saucer look? with the top and bottom mounds not symetric like they are with the 1701.

Oh, and if you look at the big image, there are only one row of windows on the saucer, which leads me to think there is only one deck there.

Should the secondary hull taper a little more in the back? It seems a little blunt....

August 25th, 2001, 11:59 PM
I think you might also want to keep in mind a circular or teardrop shape for the saucer.

The rear end looks odd cause its missing a circular extention for the clamshells hanger doors. :)

August 26th, 2001, 12:02 AM
Zox: I didn't even try a circular saucer because the screen image clearly shows the saucer is chopped off at the front. But I think it gives it a cool retro, old-timey look. I'm sure there are several points that my schematic differs from the screen image. For example, the placement of the nacelle supports differs between the two nacelles and I think the ship looks a bit fat from the top. Also, we can't be sure of the actual size. I think these sorts of questions can only be answered when one of you guys models this fine ship and stands it next to Constitution.

August 26th, 2001, 12:10 AM
I've done several ships from the TAS show already. And from experience I've learned to just have fun and play with it. There are bound to be inconsistencies just because it was drawn and not built.

August 27th, 2001, 05:32 AM
All I have to say is that's one ugly ship. Sorry to any who think otherwise, but it just looks so ungainly. Were the designs on TAS created by Jeffries and the other TOS designers, or were different designers brought in?

Thomas P
August 27th, 2001, 05:45 AM
It's a shame they didn't have Masao around back then. It is odd (and I agree ungainly) looking. It is a Trek ship though and could be tweaked here and there to make an addition to our little fleet.

August 27th, 2001, 12:59 PM
SkyHawk-Have you seen the robot cargoship? Next to that the bonaventure looks sleek

August 27th, 2001, 05:25 PM
Gee, I'm sort of getting to like Bonaventure! Part of what I like about it, and the other TAS ships, is their awkwardness (ie uglyness). The Robot cargo ships and USS Huron are suitably blocky as cargo ships, and Bonaventure certainly looks like a primitive warp ship. Although they were probably designed by Filmation (I'm guessing here), the TAS production company, they're consistent with Star Trek design. In fact, I think they'd all be good for the Starfleet Museum.

August 28th, 2001, 05:29 AM
Hey, no disagreement from me. Definitely throw them in the museum. I'm betting they would look better modelled than they do animated.

Thomas P
August 28th, 2001, 05:43 AM
Hey, I like the Huron! Seriously, they would be considered canon right? They appeared in a Trek show so??? I've seen the Huron modeled and it looks good, so I'll bet this one will too.

August 28th, 2001, 12:45 PM
In the strict definition: Yes, these are cannon ships because they did appear on a Star Trek TV show.

In later years, Roddenberry tried to de-cannonized TAS. However, it is tough since some of the things that happened in TNG first appeared in TAS. (Most notably, the Holodeck....)

I think the Bonaventure, the Huron, the Scout, and several of the alien ships are far better designs that most of what we saw in TNG up to the 4th season.

I am sure B&B would love to burn the negatives and all copies of the TAS episodes.

August 28th, 2001, 02:38 PM
I think its obvious that they wouldn't mind doing the same for all the TOS stuff too!

Thomas P
August 28th, 2001, 02:44 PM
For all intent and purpose - they have!

But hey, for all those millions of poor fans that have never 'connected' with the show they will soon have there own little version.

Is Aaron Spelling involved with this...hmmm....

(Sadly, I'm still looking forward to it :o )