# 1701 update #5!



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

Yup... this just in!


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

This time we are graced with all three version prototypes, the production, the first, and the second pilot editions.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Just finished reading mine. The kit looks great, I'd say perfect but nothing in life is perfect!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

I'm more amazed with every update. The careful thought going into the design of this model in inspiring. They are really thinking of the modeler--and not just the casual modeler either! 

The old girl looks absolutely gorgeous, too! 

P.S. Nice to know they hit that magic number of 1701 with club subscriptions!


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

WOW.....I'm more excited about this model then ever!!!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This is still a mockup and not the final production kit, but I am wondering if that's how the gridlines will finally look like or if they'll still be going for something finer. Not bad from what I saw, but could be better. Other than that everything looks very impressive.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Props to Round 2 for taking such care on this one, and keeping us in the loop.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Now that I've seen the actual prototypes I'm really learning toward building my take on the 1st pilot version. My "take" means incorporating _some_ production version details to make the ship look more real.

I'm not impressed with the shuttlecraft model that fits inside the hangar, but then it is awfully small and would be hard to get real detailed on such a small mass proaction representation.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

*yeah ,....Im excited too about this kit !*

*finally an accurate kit of the starship enterprise !*

*plus all the mods that can be done too it...heheheheh*

*OUTSTANDING ROUND2.....SIMPLY OUTSTANDING !*

*now,....all we need is a reliant in 1/350 scale .*


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I wouldn't mind a 1/350 Klingon D7 as a companion piece.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That will have to wait until the sales of this puppy roll in.

Shouldn't be hard to do the masters for it, though, since the studio models are just about the right size.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> I'm not impressed with the shuttlecraft model that fits inside the hangar, but then it is awfully small and would be hard to get real detailed on such a small mass prodution representation.


I'm sure the shuttle is a mock-up as well, I can't believe they'd give us anything so 'substandard' in comparison to the rest of the kit. I'm reserving judgement till I see actual test shots. Not about to give 'em hell for mock-ups.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Warped9 said:


> Now that I've seen the actual prototypes I'm really learning toward building my take on the 1st pilot version. My "take" means incorporating _some_ production version details to make the ship look more real.
> 
> I'm not impressed with the shuttlecraft model that fits inside the hangar, but then it is awfully small and would be hard to get real detailed on such a small mass proaction representation.


Me too! Production mixed and matched what we saw on screen all the time in the same episode. So I figure, I like this from that one, that from the other one and so on. Just means I will probably have to buy several of them (not to mention the FJ ships and all the other bashables.)

There must be room for Paulbo to brass up that shuttle! (Unless R2 is adding that in their photo etch kit.) But R2 seems to be cutting the after-marketeers out of this one with all the detail they're throwing into this kit.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Captain April said:


> That will have to wait until the sales of this puppy roll in.
> 
> Shouldn't be hard to do the masters for it, though, since the studio models are just about the right size.


Cap'n Cardboard remarked that his SS D7 is closer to 1/305 than 1/350. Different enough to not be close enough.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

The supplied Bridge insert seemed a little soft on detail, I know it's a relatively small diameter, but this area cries out for photo-etch....are you listening Paul?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Ductapeforever said:


> I'm sure the shuttle is a mock-up as well, I can't believe they'd give us anything so 'substandard' in comparison to the rest of the kit. I'm reserving judgement till I see actual test shots. Not about to give 'em hell for mock-ups.


True enough.


----------



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

Just read the email update! All I can say is WOW!!!!!!! OUTSTANDING! Can't wait for this kit! It's going to be awesome!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Excellent information. However I do hope they start to provide information about the lighting kit including when it might be out. I plan to also get it as well. Also, didn't they mention there would be a photo-etch kit for this as well?


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

I hate to say it, but I see glaring problems with the design. 

I will not say what, because you guys could care less.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

This is a discussion.... I for one am curious about your design observations.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Atemylunch said:


> I hate to say it, but I see glaring problems with the design.
> 
> I will not say what, because you guys could care less.


?????


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Either speak up and have an opinion and discuss it or stop trolling.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

John Duncan said:


> Either speak up and have an opinion and discuss it or stop trolling.


What he said!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Atemylunch said:


> I hate to say it, but I see glaring problems with the design.
> 
> I will not say what, because you guys could care less.


No, we'd like to hear what you see wrong. It's certainly possible you've spotted something we've missed.


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Ductapeforever said:


> I'm sure the shuttle is a mock-up as well, I can't believe they'd give us anything so 'substandard' in comparison to the rest of the kit. I'm reserving judgement till I see actual test shots. Not about to give 'em hell for mock-ups.


I sure hope its a mockup because I've seen garage kit castings with crisper detail. I do believe it is a mockup by the way. The detail on the ST5 shuttles in the 1:350th Polar Lights Enterprise kit is nice and sharp and clear so I am sure this one will be as well.

Mark


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Model Man said:


> Cap'n Cardboard remarked that his SS D7 is closer to 1/305 than 1/350. Different enough to not be close enough.


But, close enough that doing a true 1/350 version should be a snap.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Warped9 said:


> No, we'd like to hear what you see wrong. It's certainly possible you've spotted something we've missed.


I've been trying to speak up about this model. But I get the impression I'm only taking to the wall. Which is quite a frustration when you only try to inform. 

To whomever is interested. Warning this is a long post.

How they have this model designed "REQUIRES" an armature. Some of you know of my projects, which should quality my opinion of the subject. 

Two points are going to be a huge problem for the modeler. The base of the saucer and the base of the pylons(I have more to add about the pylons later). 

Here is an explanation, this will make things more clear. This issue came up on my thread on the RPF. But it was in relation to a larger model. 

The structural problems with the TOS E design are complex but not that complex. There are two critical areas on the model.








The white arrows on each end of the model signify gravity. See how far they are from the secondary hull. These cause stress on all of the points I have circled. The primary hull isn't that hard because it has a lot of room for structure. But the engines pose bigger issues. 








The spindly pylons(I think they are a joke) are a problem because they would twist about their base. If you used a weak material(like styrene) without any additional support. Or put too much weight into the nacelles. You'll eventually have a really warped ship.

Guess what?
They got a really warped ship. I would post the pics, but I do not have permission. But since all of you have seen it. You can see what I'm talking about. 
Honestly, I didn't expect these guys to have this problem. This is a pretty small model, I assumed they would follow the refit, which was done really well, as far as it's structure combined with ease of assembly is concerned. 

If I could show their pics I would do it. It would be much easier to explain the issues.

First is the base of the saucer. There is nothing(except hull) between the weight of the saucer and the 2nd hull. The saucer is the largest mass on the model, that has to be countered. The best way is to run the post up the neck and have it secured into the saucer. Or place a bolt that is secured to the saucer and the 2nd hull, essentially sandwiching the neck securing it in place(that's what I did on my Refit). I have a little more to add later, don't worry it comes back around. 

Next problem, the pylons. 
I about split a gut when I saw their images. 
It's a textbook case of the E's main problem. These can really be a problem, which requires a bit of planning. 








Here is my solution for the studio scale model I'm constructing. Ideally you want them connected, that is one of the big problems with the Custom Replicas 66", the weight of the nacelles has a tendency to make the hull split(Just putting in a bunch of screws isn't the best idea either, they should be secured BEFORE any undue stress is placed on the hull). I'm sure this model will have the same tendency. Now again PL solved this issue with the Refit by not having a seam between the pylons. 










Here is a very rough sketch for the 2nd hull, see the two slots aft.
Those are for the plates that keep the pylons in place. There are additional plates that are bolted through the pylons to keep them from drooping. Now they are having drooping and twisting issues because they have too loose a tolerance, on the base of the pylons. Those should be very tight, just gluing them into place isn't desirable. I would fix the tolerance with strips of styrene. Once the engines are stable then glue them into place. 

If they go the way they are going, then I might sell a few of these. :thumbsup:








It's a jig for aligning the engines, we all know the fun we had with the AMT Kit(I didn't want my 66" to resemble that little nightmare). 

Of course I would scale the jig down for the 350. 








Size comparison here. 

Now they have shown the only connection between the saucer and the pylons is the hull. This too can pose problems especially when mounting a display base to the E. This is why I said you need to mount to the saucer, it's a stronger point than just the bottom of the hull. What they have shown needs to go further back, or the simpler solution would be to have a vertical surface that goes back to support the nacelles, as well as the saucer. 
The last bit is the pylons themselves, hopefully the smaller model will not cause the level of stress a larger model poses. But even the cross pattern they are using can still twist. A box is a better solution, the best would be something stronger than the styrene. Perhaps a single aluminum bar bent at the correct angle which the pylons slip onto(of course connected to the 2nd hull, but forget having a shuttle bay). 

They may have already answered some of my concerns, but unfortunately I cannot read the text on their images. When I blew them up, the text is unintelligible. So I've got nothing else to go on but what I see. 

If you got this far, thanks for reading. 

Any questions, comments?


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

SWEET ! Now that was worth dragging out of you! There are many of us here who value well thought out, educated opinions. When presented in the right way the presentation comes across as informative not as degrading or pretensive.

I, for one Thank You. I already was aware that this kit would most likely need an internal armature just as the 1/350 refit kit did. I think the same guy that produced that one plans one for this as well.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

*well said......however, keep in mind that R2 stated several times that these "are mock-ups"...we have about 8 months before they ship them out.*
*I am sure R2 will do a few more tweaks here and there, and if not I am sure someone on these boards will come up with a fix !*


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well,

The mockups are resin not styrene, and_ NOT glued together_, and Jamie specifically said they have sag issues that the styrene kits won't have.

The nacelle pylons are engineered with internal criss-crossed ribbing designed specifically to eliminate torquing. Of course we have yet to see if it's effective with the final styrene product.

Shuttles and bridge: Never mind photoetch, I'll go blind trying to fold etch that small! But resin replacements would be excellent.


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

Also, keep in mind that R2 is very much aware of the issue that you are describing in detail. They dedicated a significant amount of this last communique on the subject, in fact. 

As for your idea of a solution, sorry, but I'd have no interest in building a model only to have it surrounded by a clunky looking support. I have no doubt that R2 will fix this issue and, even if they fail to, I'm certain someone will release an aftermarket fix (perhaps a welded interior armature).


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'm sure someone will come up with an interior armature, since someone did one for the refit.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

The attachment points look robust with lots of reinforcements.
They are working the issue.
One recommendation I have is to make the nacelle as thin as possible to make it lightweight.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I trust that the people who design and make models for a profit know what they are doing. :thumbsup:


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

Ductapeforever said:


> I already was aware that this kit would most likely need an internal armature just as the 1/350 refit kit did.


Why do people keep saying this? My refit I built 2 years ago without any internal armature is still the exact same as it was when I made it, with zero sag.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

RSN said:


> I trust that the people who design and make models for a profit know what they are doing. :thumbsup:



I can't count the number of engine pylons I have broken on the AMT 18"
models I have built over the years. Some of my kits have suffered from design flaws, so I have trouble agreeing with this.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

jgoldsack said:


> Why do people keep saying this? My refit I built 2 years ago without any internal armature is still the exact same as it was when I made it, with zero sag.



:thumbsup:
There have been many, many Refits built without an armature over the years that are still square. I call it the *"I need to over complicate things"* theory. LoL. Some just have to have to it wether it is really needed or not.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

robiwon said:


> :thumbsup:
> There have been many, many Refits built without an armature over the years that are still square. I call it the *"I need to over complicate things"* theory. LoL. Some just have to have to it wether it is really needed or not.


A lot depends on your construction techniques and type of cement used, but I have found that kits built with 'Hot' cements like Pro-Weld , Tenax, Weld on #3, etc. produce favorable results far superior to tube glues, with little to no sag.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

I shutter at the thought of anyone useing tube glue to put this kit together with.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Braceing in the assembly process, and cement drying time will go a long way in assuring best results. I haven't used tube glue since Jesus was a messcook. LOL I have built several Refits, so far none have sagged or needed an armature.

My next Refit will be for me and not a client, so I will use the armature I purchased a while back as insurance.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Ductapeforever said:


> I can't count the number of engine pylons I have broken on the AMT 18"
> models I have built over the years. Some of my kits have suffered from design flaws, so I have trouble agreeing with this.


That was 1960's mass production to a large demographic, this is aimed at a small, but loyal, group of builders. This kit will never see the sales that the original did 45 years ago, they know it has to be the best they can do at a price they can make a profit with. I have Faith! :thumbsup:


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

RSN said:


> I trust that the people who design and make models for a profit know what they are doing. :thumbsup:


I don't,since the tone of the update is already apologetic in a few places.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Bear in mind I haven't seen the updates on this model that club members are privy to but, if anyone considers the kit lacking in the area of structural integrity as far as the nacelle struts are concerned, my suggestion would be to brace the pylons with brass tubing. Done correctly, the nacelles should never sag. Just run 2 pieces of rectangular brass tubing parallel to each other in each strut with a enough poking out the top to pack some epoxy putty around inside the nacelle. Then pack some more epoxy putty in between the tubing inside each strut and down at the base where the tubing sticks into the hull. You can also run wiring inside the tubing for the motors and lights in the bussards. When I built my 18 incher I did that plus I used 2 part liquid epoxy to glue a strip of brass along the seam on the spine between the pylons for added strength. 7 years later and no sagging. You can support the whole weight of the ship grabbing the rear of one nacelle and that sucker doesn't flex at all. 
Now there may be things about the design of this model that would preclude doing any of this; if that is the case... never mind.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

The photos in this update look like it will be a strong mofo.


----------



## GUS (Jun 29, 2006)

I am really happy with what I see so far, if the grid lines are like in the mock
up then I will probably sand mine off.

My refit isn't sagging either after 3 yrs. (superglue)


blueshirt
gus


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

People have to remember that the models they are showing are resin prototypes, not kit parts. They are press fit together, not glued. These are not the final full feature parts. How about we save the "the nacelles are drooping", "there's to much weight not enough support", "major fit problems and twisting" criticisms until after you all have built the actual model and let it sit for a year.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Wouldn't the weight of the lights in the Bussards serve as an effective counterbalance to the aft ends of the nacelles?


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Ductapeforever said:


> SWEET ! Now that was worth dragging out of you! There are many of us here who value well thought out, educated opinions. When presented in the right way the presentation comes across as informative not as degrading or pretensive.
> 
> I, for one Thank You. I already was aware that this kit would most likely need an internal armature just as the 1/350 refit kit did. I think the same guy that produced that one plans one for this as well.


Thank you I do appreciate it. I've spent a lot of time figuring this ship out. Like I stated before I'm more interested in educating you guys. I want more modelers in the world, with finished models. 

Out of my experience in modeling it seems the manufactures(both mainstream and GKer's) of kits are their own worst enemies. Especially if you have to fix something, or it takes more work to get the model the way you perceive it. It acts as a deterrence to an insecure modeler. That is what I see happening here. This ship is really simple, it shouldn't need an armature. But this one will, because the design doesn't take a number of factors into account. 



RMC said:


> *well said......however, keep in mind that R2 stated several times that these "are mock-ups"...we have about 8 months before they ship them out.*
> *I am sure R2 will do a few more tweaks here and there, and if not I am sure someone on these boards will come up with a fix !*


My opinions are based on their drawings and statements. By the looks of things they have the design completed. Now they are doing the tweaks. After sleeping on it I see more issues. 

One thing I do want to say, the Refit DOESN'T need an armature. The more I was thinking about it the better it's structure and assembly looks, it shows some real thought went into it. As opposed to what PL is doing with the TOS E. I will give you guys a detailed explanation later. Right now I need to eat lunch, and get some work done. I'll post later with pics.


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

Atemylunch said:


> It acts as a deterrence to an insecure modeler.


Um, the only person I see deterred here is you. Without being rude, I would like to say that I think you're looking for a problem that really doesn't even exist. Round 2 is fully aware of potential issues, and their design certainly seems to have compensated for any drooping.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

GSaum said:


> Um, the only person I see deterred here is you. Without being rude, I would like to say that I think you're looking for a problem that really doesn't even exist. Round 2 is fully aware of potential issues, and their design certainly seems to have compensated for any drooping.


Amen!:thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Again, wouldn't the lighting rig in the foreward part of the nacelle balance out the weight of the aft end? And thus compensate for any torquing of the struts?


----------



## Nova Mike (Apr 26, 2009)

just receive update 5 and it looks sweet:thumbsup: its going to be a long wait until the release, by any chance does anyone know how to get updates 1 thru 4, I would like to follow the progression so far. thanks


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Captain April said:


> Again, wouldn't the lighting rig in the foreward part of the nacelle balance out the weight of the aft end? And thus compensate for any torquing of the struts?


The bussard weight may be too close to the pylon to balance the torque, but I'm just guessing. 

... but if torque around the pylon axis (as opposed to sagging around the secondary hull axis) is the only issue, then maybe a weight at the bussard end might compensate. But as I said, I'm just guessing. As others have said, maybe some nice welding-type cement would fix any issues if the forces are designed to be transferred as shear at the joints to be cemented.

... but as I said ...


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Atemylunch said:


> I've been trying to speak up about this model. But I get the impression I'm only taking to the wall. Which is quite a frustration when you only try to inform.
> 
> To whomever is interested. Warning this is a long post.
> 
> ...


Another example of why I think longer posts are usually better than one-liners.

I'm a bit surprised that you thought you'd be "talking to the wall" on this topic, though. Yes, there are folks who complain about anything other than fawning praise and adulation, and who complain about posts longer than one sentence in length, but they're not the majority. Just an occasionally loud minority.

FYI, I fully agree that armature work is going to be required for this model to last (without sagging) for more than a short period of time. I've already got a hardwood structure designed for my own build, and I fully support the production of a steel armature such as what you've done previously (which I love, by the way).

I think that the structure provided is going to be about as good as possible for a fully-plastic structure. The problem is, model-grade plastic ALWAYS deforms over time when under a load, at any temperature remotely inhabitable by human beings.

A steel frame will be great. A dense hardwood frame will be excellent as well, and will weigh a lot less for the same rigidity (and will tend to dampen vibrations rather than acting as a spring, which is the main drawback of a steel frame). The nice thing about hardwood is that it's a lot easier to work, and to join, than metal, too. That's the main reason I've chosen to go that way.

But I'm certain that you'll be able to sell quite a few of any steel frame you make for this kit.

The nicest aspect of the revised design, IMHO, is that it's going to be almost trivial to remove bits of the plastic structure to permit my wooden framework to be put in, while still allowing it to be fully lit. The first version of the internal framework was a bit less "convertible" in that sense than this later revision is.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

It is amazing that there are so many experts on a kit that does not exist beyond the prototype stage! :thumbsup:


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

It's not so amazing. There are hundreds of thousands of people who do exactly that, every day... which is why aircraft don't always crash on their first flight, home appliances, when first produced, normally work adequately, hand tools do the jobs they're intended to do, and so forth.

It's not a requirement to build a final form of a design in order to learn a great deal about it.

We know the design of the model... that's very clearly shown in the various images shown in these various shots. And we know the physical characteristics of standard model-grade polystyrene... 

http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=df6b1ef50ce84e7995bdd1f6fd1b04c9&ckck=1

and in particular, if you've worked with this material much in real life, you likely have a good grip on how it behaves.

All we're talking about here is basic mechanics... the most fundamental engineering principles. Certain joints will inevitably see a load. Adding weight to the nacelle dome will not help the stress at the base of the nacelle pylon, it will exacerbate it... again, basic fundamental mechanics. 

The design provided in the kit (as indicated by the DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN IMAGES provided) makes it very clear that they've made this about as robust as you can using nothing but standard, talc-filled polystyrene resin. But there is inevitably going to be a significant moment applied to the pylon attachment points, and the to dorsal-to-saucer attachment point for that matter (particularly laterally, if the ship isn't perfectly level) which will put a load on the plastic.

All plastics have a characteristic known as "cold flow rate." This can be measured through other means as well... while "cold flow rate" is the most common in my experience, "tensile creep modulus" is another popular method of measuring that, and this is what's listed on the datasheet I've linked to.

If this isn't clear... think about this, or even give it a shot...

You can demonstrate this by putting a heavy weight on a piece of plastic sprue. Initially, it will not deform the part permanently. However, leave it on there for a year, and the sprue will be nearly flattened. Heat the plastic to a higher temperature, and the rate of flow increases. Plastic, unlike water or metal, does not go through a specific "phase change" at a specific melting temperature. It softens with increasing temperature, and hardens (and yes, eventually embrittles) with lowering temperatures.

That's my concern, and "Lunch"'s concern as well, if I understood his point adequately. The parts WILL deform under load, over time, unless reinforced with a structure which does not exhibit the same "cold flow" characteristics that all plastics naturally do.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Luckily this is a hobby for me, as well as therapy and as such I don't look at it as anything more than something that has brought me 40+ years of pleasure. I don't take it personally if a piece of plastic I glued 5 years ago starts to droop, I'm more concerned about how much more of my liver has died in that time, or how much more my thyroid is damaged and the list goes on. If engine droop on a model that does not yet exist is something you need to over examine, then I am happy for you. I hope you will enjoy building it as much as I know I will when I get it.....if I only knew where I was going to put it. I'd ask my wife.....but I know where she would tell me (OUCH!)!!!!! Enjoy life and enjoy modeling!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

GSaum said:


> As for your idea of a solution, sorry, but I'd have no interest in building a model only to have it surrounded by a clunky looking support. /QUOTE]
> In case you didn't notice it is a jig for nacelle alignment. Not for display.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Continuation-









This solved that problem, I like to add a bit of magic sculpt to the mechanical connection(it makes me feel better, Yes I still have some issues with the that AMT kit. I should build one to get it out of my system). 









Here is some of the nice conveniences of this model, and the thought that went into this model. Which I was surprised to not find in the TOS E. 
The pylons are firmly attached to the hull, they all go together easily. No alignment necessary and...








easy access to the hull. Since it was made to accommodate the shuttle bay/cargo area, there is plenty of room. Since the bottom of the 2nd hull is a separate piece so it's easy to route wire and place lighting. Something that isn't so easy in a two piece hull. One other thing is the pins on each of the side pieces. They connect across the hull, keeping it from deforming. A cylindrical shape can deform with external forces acting upon it. Unless otherwise braced.








Sorry about the quality, but this shows the internal bracing. Including a vertical brace which also acts under compression. To relieve some of the stress on the sides of the hull. This sort of thing is negated when using an armature.








This is one of the nicest things they did on this model. The tongue and grove connection makes this real easy, with proper control over glue flow it makes for a clean and strong connection. Since it's on a panel line of the hull, it makes it even better. Some really good ideas went into this model. But we never complain about the parts go together well. 

Now here is some comparisons of the models. The refit 2nd hull to the MR E. This will show the task PL had with the TOS E kit, and give some illustration to my concerns. 
















Look at the size differences, there really isn't much room in the E at this scale. Which displays quite a challenge PL had ahead of it. Since it was done by MR, made by Chinese laborers. We know it can be done, and much better than they did. 

I hope I've made some sense with these posts. 
I wanted to show PL did in the past and seem to neglect today. 

There was a question I wanted to address from Captain April. 


> Wouldn't the weight of the lights in the Bussards serve as an effective counterbalance to the aft ends of the nacelles?


Normally yes, but with the E it's connection is coming out at a angle to both the nacelle and the 2nd hull. The nacelle wants to droop to the floor and fall back(twist about the pylon). If you counter it one way, you sill have the other moment to deal with. Which is why it would need an armature, it has to be stronger than the force of gravity pulling it down. Things will change considerably if you add a motor in the nacelle. The type of motor I would use would overstress the pylon. But a model quieter than the MR E would be my goal. 

We have to wait to make a final assessment of this kit. I'm sure it will have issues, all models do. 

Thank you for listening. 

Questions, comments?


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

In the update photos....I believe the 11th down:http: //trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?QksM-R8uq-k37WO3 , there is a frontal view of the bridge-teardrop area. To my eyes, the "teardrop deck's" starboard and port side lower terminus (where it meets the upper primary hull) appears too verticle...... Mabey this area possibly will sink slightly into the upper hull when glued on. However, I'm aware that this could be a distortion of the particular photo.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

Mark, I see the same thing. The pic several frames below, showing the pilot saucer from fore/above shows a similar vertical deck base... and if you look very closely at the aft view you'll notice something interesting on that point.... to my eye the starboard side of the teardrop has that vertical entrance to the saucer, but the port side appears to enter at the correct slight angle. But this could be a keystoning perspective distortion and my old eyes are not what they used to be.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Mark Dorais said:


> In the update photos....I believe the 11th down:http: //trk.cp20.com/Tracking/t.c?QksM-R8uq-k37WO3 , there is a frontal view of the bridge-teardrop area. To my eyes, the "teardrop deck's" starboard and port side lower terminus (where it meets the upper primary hull) appears too verticle...... Mabey this area possibly will sink slightly into the upper hull when glued on. However, I'm aware that this could be a distortion of the particular photo.


Not to worry. I wasn't at Polar Lights when this photo was taken, but the bridge/teardrop section fits very snugly into the recess in the upper saucer, and I believe the guys simply sat the bridge/teardrop atop the saucer while they were doing a lighting test. At any rate, the profile of the bridge/teardrop in the 3D SolidWorks model, from which the tooling will be made, matches my Autocad drawings (which were made from templates of the 11-footer) real well.

Gary


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

Gary, thanks for chiming in! It's a tribute to the efforts of all involved that we builder/fans are combing these update photos looking for any gnat's eyelash that might be askew.


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

Gary K said:


> Not to worry. I wasn't at Polar Lights when this photo was taken, but the bridge/teardrop section fits very snugly into the recess in the upper saucer, and I believe the guys simply sat the bridge/teardrop atop the saucer while they were doing a lighting test. At any rate, the profile of the bridge/teardrop in the 3D SolidWorks model, from which the tooling will be made, matches my Autocad drawings (which were made from templates of the 11-footer) real well.
> 
> Gary


Thanks Gary. Can't wait to get my hands on this model!


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Thanks for the two write-us, Atemylunch. We know you are seriously studying the construction and your info is fantastic.

Some may not pay attention, but many of us do.

:wave:


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

jgoldsack said:


> Why do people keep saying this? My refit I built 2 years ago without any internal armature is still the exact same as it was when I made it, with zero sag.


DITTO, my refit shows no sagging at all. and its built with only the parts out of the box.:thumbsup:


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

hanging it from the ceiling is one option, you would have to find center of gravity and do some R and D to get it to hang in a desired profile. I find 50 pound test fishing line worked OK for my 24 inch Jupiter from Lunar.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Two years really isn't a very long time. I can understand what is being said here particularly by folks with far more knowledge of how different materials than I have. They are merely sharing what they know and their own opinion. I, for one, appreciate the insight.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

woof359 said:


> hanging it from the ceiling is one option, you would have to find center of gravity and do some R and D to get it to hang in a desired profile. I find 50 pound test fishing line worked OK for my 24 inch Jupiter from Lunar.


Wouldn't that R&D basically be - sit it on your finger and balance it until it doesn't fall over?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I wouldn't be worried about the fishing line, but whatever is being used to fix said line to the ceiling.

That'd be one heartbreaking sound as that sucker crashed to the floor....


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Captain April said:


> I wouldn't be worried about the fishing line, but whatever is being used to fix said line to the ceiling.
> 
> That'd be one heartbreaking sound as that sucker crashed to the floor....


I lost a few 18 inch Enterprises to crashes using fishing line as a kid. If I were to use fishing line again I'd wrap a second piece of fine wire around it as a failsafe mechanism for when the fishing line inevitably broke.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'll never forget the 1/24 Airfix Spitfire I had hanging from my ceiling in my teens. I hung it over the bed in case the string broke. It broke. At 2AM. Landed right on my butt. THAT'll wake ya up!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Like I said, the fishing line isn't the concern, it's whatever you're attaching that fishing line to. I've always been partial to thumbtacks, but I can see the sheer weight of a 1/350 scale Enterprise eventually pulling that tack out and a very uncontrolled landfall taking place at the most inconvenient time possible. But I also have no doubt the fishing line would be the only thing unbroken afterward.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

This Gigantic 1/18 scale P-51 Mustang has been hanging for 5 years from
50 lb test fishing line off of a plant hangar. 

I just got up and put around 10 extra pounds of pull from my hand....no problem.

These plant hooks are cast metal, and have a seam. When using this method , sand the inside edges of the plant hook smooth with
a jewelers file or sanding stick to remove any sharp edges.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Ductapeforever said:


> This Gigantic 1/18 scale P-51 Mustang has been hanging for 5 years from
> 50 lb test fishing line off of a plant hangar. I just got up and put around 10 extra pounds of pull from my hand....no problem.
> When using this method Sand the inside edges of the plant hook smooth with
> a jewelers file or sanding stick to remove any sharp edges.


I think that was part of the problem. As a kid, I ddin't think to sand the front edge of the dorsal and it tended to break right there.


----------



## NTRPRZ (Feb 23, 1999)

Just how do we access all this information, including the photos?

I'm apparently a member of the 1701 club -- I signed up and even got a red T-shirt. But I can't figure out how to get this great access?

I don't need to ask if someone can help, 'cause I know they can.

Please?

Jeff
(You'd think, considering my screen name, that I'd know more about all things Enterprise!)


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

If you're a member of the 1701 Club then you should be getting the updates. I suggest you try to contact them to find out whats going on.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ductapeforever said:


> This Gigantic 1/18 scale P-51 Mustang has been hanging for 5 years from
> 50 lb test fishing line off of a plant hangar.
> 
> I just got up and put around 10 extra pounds of pull from my hand....no problem.
> ...


I've got a 1/18 P-47 up using screws into the ceiling, and hung from painting-hanging wire. She seems stable.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Gary K said:


> Not to worry. I wasn't at Polar Lights when this photo was taken, but the bridge/teardrop section fits very snugly into the recess in the upper saucer, and I believe the guys simply sat the bridge/teardrop atop the saucer while they were doing a lighting test. At any rate, the profile of the bridge/teardrop in the 3D SolidWorks model, from which the tooling will be made, matches my Autocad drawings (which were made from templates of the 11-footer) real well.
> 
> Gary


Ah, so my question, about what software they designers are using, is finally answered... and it's a good answer.

Solidworks is not my personal tool of choice, but it's a very close second-place. It's actually a bit better at surface-based work than Pro/ENGINEER, my personal preferred tool, happens to be.

It's probably the best tool out there for designing molded plastic parts, due to a series of tools which make it quite easy to "chop up" a CAD model into moldable parts. While it lacks the "mold flow analysis" tool which Pro/ENGINEER has provided by default, there are similar stand-alone packages which can be "hooked in" to Solidworks. While I'd never want to use Solidworks to design an airframe, for example, due to limitations on dataset size, it's an excellent choice for this sort of application. The accuracy capabilities of Solidworks are on par with Pro/E's, and better than most other CAD software out there, for example.

It would take an act of conscious effort to create gaps in a physical model made from a Solidworks CAD model. There should be very few issues with fit if the model is made properly using this tool. While there could be some issues related to post-de-molding shrinkage, if they have good mold design engineers, those should be trivial to resolve.

I was a bit worried, earlier, that they might have been using Inventor or one of the less accurate software tools.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'm sure Gary is gratified at your approval.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

When are we gonna start seeing photos of the prototype with the supposedly final "fine" gridlines? A friend showed me the newest update, and the gridlines look unchanged from the previous update... in other words, still too noticeably deep. Just wondering when we'll start seeing photos of the "final" version of the prototype model.

I like the way they have the warp pylons supported... I think that will help a lot.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

My guess is that we wont see final grid line depth until tooling is cut.


----------



## Nektu (Aug 15, 2001)

How about no grid lines, then we won't have to worry how much we have to fill them.
I still don't understand why they're being cut into this great model!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Nektu said:


> How about no grid lines, then we won't have to worry how much we have to fill them.
> I still don't understand why they're being cut into this great model!


Barn door, horse, etc.

You're too late.

Gary (or Jamie?) explained their reasoning at great length, months ago.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

I think it (they) look fantastic so far. Just hope thats not the final word on the "lines". I'm sure they can get them much smaller than that.


----------



## Nektu (Aug 15, 2001)

barn door, horse? 
Okay, guess I missed the explanation, but if they are still at changes, and prototypes, what possible reason can there be to add lines that didn't exist other than as pencil markings.
Not trying to rile anything up, or beat any dead horses (or barn doors).
It can be changed.


----------



## jlwshere (Mar 30, 2007)

John P said:


> I'm sure someone will come up with an interior armature, since someone did one for the refit.


Yes, but at what cost? The Refit Armature cost as much as the actual model....


----------



## jlwshere (Mar 30, 2007)

*I guess the debate has ended on grid lines*

I know this was a VERY hot topic awhile back, so much so that the #2 Update was basically all about grid lines and the justification foroputting them in. After seeing the most recent photos, my comment is this: 

I was looking forward to adding grid lines, either by pencil or decal, but am not really looking forward to filling in these "engravings". I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Nektu (Aug 15, 2001)

As I recall, the logic was 'philosophical and practical'. Neither seemed real to me when I read it. They were added hastily to the original 11 foot model in the 60s at Roddenberry's request, and for forty years almost no one saw them! I agree that adding them by hand with a pencil would be difficult, but filling them all with putty is just tedious busy work. 
The line used in update #2 was 'it's a compromise'. It's not. How many guys here really want them? I have to think those wanting the lines are a tiny minority, if anyone really wants them all. Was there ever a public poll? Is it really too late to have opinions about this? There are still tons of changes happening to the model prototypes now, right? Easier for them to fill the darn things one time, then the sea of kits that will have to be 'fixed'.
Maybe they can include a full tube of 3M spot putty to every kit, because that's what every one will need. 

K


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This was all hashed out sometime ago only some aren't going to get over it. The lines we've seen so far aren't of the finished kit. The model is still a work in progress. So can't judgement be reserved until we see the final thing?

The penciled lines were supposed to represent a physical detail that would have been too costly to add otherwise than being just penciled in. That's just the nature of television production. The fact that the lines were effectively unseen for years was due largely to the poor resolution of 1960's to '80's era televisions. The lines were meant to be seen (or they wouldn't have been added) only it didn't work out that way.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Yeah, just to clarify, before some Mod decides to get pissed at me... I'm not arguing about the gridlines here... I know they're gonna be on the kit, unfortunately, and there's nothing I can do about it. What I _AM _asking, is if this is the final incarnation of those lines or not. I'm interested to know/see if this is what they'll look like, or if they'll get even finer. So, if anyone knows how far down the road we can expect that update, I'd be interested to know.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

When it goes to tooling and a true test shot is then produced is when we will know, and not one second before. The kit is still in the design process, and the issues are being addressed, solutions found, and notes for the tooling process finalized. Patience is a virtue, of which none of you possess!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?


----------



## liskorea317 (Mar 27, 2009)

John P said:


> Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?


Not yet! >slap!< Wha-a-a-ahhh!...


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

Pretty sure the lines on the mockups are larger so they can be seen in the photos sent to PL and will be refined in the tooling process.They are going to be on there, they've allready confirmed that, just hoping that they can get them ultra fine to ease filling.
You gotta admit, the three models look fantastic together! :thumbsup:
And thats just the way they will look when I'm loading them into the U-Haul when the wife gives me the boot!:freak:


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Hunch said:


> Pretty sure the lines on the mockups are larger so they can be seen in the photos sent to PL and will be refined in the tooling process.They are going to be on there, they've allready confirmed that, just hoping that they can get them ultra fine to ease filling.


I sure hope so. The grid lines on the mockup are way too thick. If they are a much finer engraving I will be much more pleased. I don't mind the grid lines, but only if they are a subtle enhancement.


----------



## H.Erickson (Sep 1, 2005)

John P said:


> I'm sure someone will come up with an interior armature, since someone did one for the refit.


I did the one for the Refit and I am currently working on a new one for the 1/350 TOS. Hope to have it available soon.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

H.Erickson said:


> I did the one for the Refit and I am currently working on a new one for the 1/350 TOS. Hope to have it available soon.


What would be awesome would be to have SIDE mounted options... instead of "starship on a stick"


----------

