# Anybody making an Armature for the TOS 1701 1/350th yet?



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Anybody making an Armature for the TOS 1701 1/350th yet?

Hans Erickson made won for the 1701-A kits.

Anybody making one for the Round2 TOS 1/350th Enterprise?


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=399939

He is also making one for the TOS 1/350.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Anybody making an Armature for the TOS 1701 1/350th yet?
> 
> Hans Erickson made won for the 1701-A kits.
> 
> Anybody making one for the Round2 TOS 1/350th Enterprise?


Why, does it need one?

Before you go out and spend money on an armature, make sure that you need one before you spend the money on something you may not help you out.

Ask the guys who built one if they feel it needs one.
You may do more damage to your model by altering it.

The nacelle struts on the 1/350 TOS have a pretty robust pattern in there, that if glued properly, eliminates any sag or twist.

If you have to remove any of that pattern to use the armature, you may be doing more harm than good.
And its a pretty expensive model to experiment with.


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

This is the most solid styrene kit I've ever worked on. It's so well engineered that I have no concerns about sagging or support issues.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

ClubTepes said:


> Why, does it need one?
> 
> Before you go out and spend money on an armature, make sure that you need one before you spend the money on something you may not help you out.
> 
> ...


The only reason I would use one is side mount the model.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

The pieces for this kit are pretty dang solid when put together, even a dry test fitting. In fact I've had to trim down the nacelle struts that slide into the secondary hull because it was too tight of a fit!!! And I've also had to do it on the other end of the pylons as well!!
And I don't recall about the neck though.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

It doesn't need one, really.


----------



## seaview62 (Nov 30, 2012)

The dorsal and struts are really tight and solid, don't think you'd need one as well.:thumbsup:


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

jgoldsack said:


> The only reason I would use one is side mount the model.


I concur.


----------



## modelmaker 2001 (Sep 6, 2007)

My model has held together even with just rubber bands and some parts didn't really even need the rubber bands. It's a very solid, tight fitting kit and I can't see that an armature would be anything other than a waste of money, more work, and possibly damaging the kit's structural integrity.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

modelmaker 2001 said:


> My model has held together even with just rubber bands and some parts didn't really even need the rubber bands. It's a very solid, tight fitting kit and I can't see that an armature would be anything other than a waste of money, more work, and possibly damaging the kit's structural integrity.


What if you needed to ship it? Would an armature help then? How do people ship model commissions that they sell?


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

PixelMagic said:


> What if you needed to ship it? Would an armature help then? How do people ship model commissions that they sell?


Nothing that a custom made shipping package can't handle...


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

The thing that could potentially be of concern is sag over time. Not sure how a unfortified styrene structure, no matter how solid-appearing at present, would fare over time without structural support. The 11-foot studio model suffered some noticeable nacelle sag over a couple of years. I'll see if I can find that website that shows a comparison of the early version vs. the production version and one can see the nacelles already starting to sag toward the back. Clearly the design of the Enterprise wasn't meant for earth gravity, and the larger the replica the greater the potential for problems. Just my 2 pennies.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

A 134 inch long model which weighs about 200 pounds if not more versus a 32 inch long model made of light weight polystyrene and weighs ales than 5 pounds. Gee I doubt the nacelles on the 32 inch model are going to sag after only 2 years.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

irishtrek said:


> A 134 inch long model which weighs about 200 pounds if not more versus a 32 inch long model made of light weight polystyrene and weighs ales than 5 pounds. Gee I doubt the nacelles on the 32 inch model are going to sag after only 2 years.



I never suggested that the nacelles on the 32-inch model were going to sag after only 2 years. But I doubt that you can guarantee that they won't sag after 12 years. Or 22 years. Just as I couldn't guarantee that they will.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

jgoldsack said:


> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=399939
> 
> He is also making one for the TOS 1/350.


Thanks jgoldsack!


Also thanks to everyone else for their advice.

I have a Master Replicas TOS E 1/350th.

While I love it, I don't like the paint job all that much.

It may be accurate to the filming miniature but is a bit too dark
and the weathering on the top of the saucer is a bit off-putting.

I have absolutely no doubt that the paint job is pretty darn accurate,
except for a light leak near the impulse engine.

I'd like to build an R2 that I'm comfortable with being as sturdy as
the MR TOS E.

I know that the MR TOS E needs an armature largely due to it being resin and not
plastic.

And I agree with you that this appears to be a very well designed and
sturdy kit.

But I'd like to build one that will last decades without having to worry
about drooping or worrying excessively about it being damaged easily while moving her around.

Those of you who believe it unnecessary may indeed be totally right.

But there is something to be said for peace of mind. 

That's hard to put a price on.

Thanks guys! :thumbsup:


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

The TOS E kit is the best engineered model I've ever seen. I wish the 1/350 refit had been so sturdy. Just to ease my mind, I plan to affix my dorsal and saucer with screws and nuts. I want to do the same with the sec hull and dorsal at the trailing edge where the weight of the saucer is carried, but it's a challenge due to the crossways ribs. 

I'm thinking about cutting slots in the last two ribs and inserting 2X5/8X1/16 Everbilt steel mending plates (Home Depot part no. 339 482) on each side. That would provide a 7/32" hole I could run a screw thru securing the dorsal and sec hull and take the stress off that glue joint.

The nacelle struts are fairly sturdy. If you insert one into it's nacelle, hold the end that inserts into the secondary, you can feel it's carrying quite a bit of weight. Apply some pressure to the nacelle end, it takes a bit to bend the strut, but it does bend. I doubt there would ever be sag due to the way the pylon is secured in place by the nacelle halves, but I could see the possibility of the strut itself bending/twisting over time. Just for peace of mind, I'm likely to add a steel strip or something similar to stiffen the pylons. I'm pondering having an SLA set grown from a rigid and heat resistant material.

I'm really stoked about building the kit, but taking some time to plan first.

I got out the secondary and the steel backplates; there's no way to slide it in place due to the glue pin/hole just aft the dorsal. Sooo what I could is to notch the middle two ribs deep enough for the backplates to fit in. My goal here is to take the weight stress of the saucer off the aft dorsal/sec hull glue joint to prevent splitting. IDK, maybe that's not even necessary once the thing is glued together.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Thanks jgoldsack!
> 
> 
> Also thanks to everyone else for their advice.
> ...


Tell you what,
If your afraid of sag over decades, I suggest putting SQUARE tube stock in the nacelle struts.

I have ZERO worries about building mine without an armature.
And I have have ZERO worries about any sag over decades.

If you look at your directions, your gonna find my name.
The pattern that is in the struts, is one of the things that I really pushed for in the the engineering of this kit.
The final pattern is a collaboration between Jim, Jamie and myself.
As an example to prove the concept, I took the struts from the 22' cutaway kit (which has notoriously weak struts). One strut I glued stock and the other I put the x pattern into. Even with the simple rough concept piece which had evergreen plastic in there (which as everyone knows is also very flexible) the result was a structure that was MANY MANY times stronger and more rigid than the stock built strut. 

My suggestions for gluing and to ensure proper straightness, is to use a solvent based glue. (one of the few times I still use tube glue - slow set up time and gap filling characteristics).
Epoxy can 'pop off' of the plastic as it is held on only by surface tension.
The thin glues are good on delicate stuff, but I think they evaporate too quickly.
Make sure you glue the x pattern.
Put the freshly glued struts on a very flat surface and place a board on top of them (spread the struts apart under the board and place weight on top of the boards to really compress them. (I used two 25lb. weights).

Again, if you alter the kit, it seems to me that you increase the variables.


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

I agree with Mike. I glued mine up just as he suggested (apart from using clamps instead of the weights) and they're as strong as can be.


----------



## SDF-3 (Mar 15, 2010)

I have a first run 350th refit E, almost 6 yrs has not sagged a millimeter.

Even for piece of mind, it is money needlessly spent.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

SDF-3 said:


> I have a first run 350th refit E, almost 6 yrs has not sagged a millimeter.
> 
> Even for piece of mind, it is money needlessly spent.


The TOS pylons are different than the Refit. Secondly, almost 6 years is not as long as decades. And also, the value one places on piece of mind is highly subjective.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Proper2 said:


> The TOS pylons are different than the Refit.


Agreed.
The refit pylons have greater stress where the struts meet the secondary hull.
With less internal bracing.

I actually would consider an armature for the refit.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

ClubTepes said:


> Tell you what,
> If your afraid of sag over decades, I suggest putting SQUARE tube stock in the nacelle struts.
> 
> I have ZERO worries about building mine without an armature.
> ...


You engineered those struts? You deserve a pat on the back. I knew not to mess with them when I saw all that cross-bracing. Used tube glue on all the mating surfaces and they were as strong as I expected them to be once the glue dried.


----------

