I usually read these and rarely respond but I asked this back in December of last year and was wondering if anyone else has thought about this. Voyager was clearly built to land and did so several times, it would be pretty cool to fly one down and extend the struts and and land.
Not like the new shuttle landing video though, treat it like an asteroid, I "landed" on several of those when cloaked and uncloaked.

If its not like the new shuttle video, as in cut scene, what do you mean then?

Though a video of the brel landing in the doomsday mission would be nice

I can't see that happen. the reason is that not all the ships landing mechanism and some people will be wondering why can't they ships have these landing mechanism.

The smaller ones, and the ones that look like they could sit flat on the ground without falling over (like the nebula) should have ground landing capabilites. If nothing else, a graphic of the landed ship in the background where my crew spawns on the exterior ground maps would satify me.

Personally, I always thought that the Intrepid looked extremely unbalanced when landed - the saucer looked like it could easily have caused it to go face-first when sitting on the ground. So in other words, I'm not sure how that highlighted statement can be applied

Not very likely. The game engine isn't setup for that sort of thing. For landing on a body of any size, you would need large,incredibly detailed maps for being able to land "anywhere". Otherwise would be basically landing on rails and what fun would that be for long?

Did you ever collect the Micromachines Star Trek Ships? The Galaxy, Consitution, Ambassador, and a few others could never sit flat, no matter what you did. The Miranda only did if you held down the naccelles with loops in certain floor carpets. I would say that using those would be a good start to figure out wich ones should have the capacity to land.

It depends on where the heaviest parts of the ship are located. It has been argued that the Nacelles containing the massive warp coils outweigh anything else in the larger but mostly hollow (in comparison) saucer section and thus the ship is perfectly balanced when landed.

Actually someone went through the efford and actually CALCULATET arround with the ships mass and the landing gear and the result was that its ABSOLUTLEY IMPOSSIBLE that the Intrepit lands with that landing gear. It neither could be balanced nor could the small landing gear be stable enough to even cary the weight.

Not that I really understood those calculations but its funny to know.

However, its canon she WAS able to land... explain it by... some kind of dampening field... subspace... a magician... its possible "inuniverse".

By the way, the Defaint and Nova have landing gear on thier MSD so they can land too,.... Galaxy and souvereign have no landing gear at their MSD so they cant land unless some fool lets accidantly pilot a Betazoid the saucer section.

Also we already have a landet BoP model...

Well, I own one of the Voyager Revell models and it isn't stable either.
It is terribly nose-heavy and tends to crash its front into the table each time someone passes if rather quickly.
Unless the Intrepid class balanced differently because the nacelles are rather heavy (for example the warp coils might be of dense material) it would always flip to the front.
They might use a tractor beam to keep the saucer from crashing into the ground but then anyone dumb enough to walk beneath the saucer would be turned into a pancake by the tractor.

As for the mass thingy consider this:
The largest battleship ever built is the Yamato.
263 meters long and 72,000 tons at full load.
The "Starship Spotter" gives the Intrepid the familiar length of 344.5 meters and a weight of 700,000 tons.
Which is the weight of over 9 1/2 fully loaded Yamatos, or 12 Iowas if you prefer.
Unless you land that thing on a granite plateau it's going to crush the ground it's placed on with absolute certainty, especially with those tiny struts which will transmit the ship's entire weight to the ground.