# New TOS Enterprise 1/350 question



## H.Erickson (Sep 1, 2005)

Please forgive my ignorance, I don't get on here nearly as much as I like to too. But has anyone actually seen the new Polar Lights 1/350 TOS Enterprise yet? When the 1/350 scale TMP Enterprise was making it's debut there were all kinds of pictures of it circling the internet along with pictures of the individual parts of the model before it was released. With the new TOS Enterprise I can't seem to find ANYTHING...

Does anyone have any information?


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

H.Erickson said:


> Please forgive my ignorance, I don't get on here nearly as much as I like to too. But has anyone actually seen the new Polar Lights 1/350 TOS Enterprise yet? When the 1/350 scale TMP Enterprise was making it's debut there were all kinds of pictures of it circling the internet along with pictures of the individual parts of the model before it was released. With the new TOS Enterprise I can't seem to find ANYTHING...
> 
> Does anyone have any information?


The resin master was recently on display at iHobby show in Chicago.There is no plastic samples yet,they are working on some issues before that happens.It looks like it is on schedule for a Nov-Dec release next year.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Each of the major sites has at least one article concerning the prototype shown at iHobby:
http://culttvman.com/main/?p=18871
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/EVENTS/jl_2k11ihobby.htm
http://www.collectormodel.com/

There are numerous threads on the boards, for example the sticky at the top of the Hobby Talk Science Fiction board (where this question was asked): 
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=333035

And then there's Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...045l49648l0l50120l2l2l0l0l0l0l145l276l0.2l2l0


----------



## H.Erickson (Sep 1, 2005)

Wow, thanks everyone. I guess I definately wasn't looking hard enough, again thanks guys.

She certainly is beautiful, I guess I wasn't expecting it so late in 2012 either. Looking at the pictures I can see now a lot of the issues people have been discussing.

Another concern might end up being a saging concern with the nacelles. I realize that the model in the photos is made of resin and wasn't actually assembled, but that's still a lot of weight aft of their support arms. I'm wondering if it's going to end up needing an armature.

I also am a little dishearted about having to wait a year for them to hit the shelves.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

I don't know where the Nov-Dec 12 time frame came from... My guess would be earlier but what do I know?

Thanks to modern computer aided manufacturing, they have been able to get the shape down very close before ever creating a physical mock-up. Right now they think the shapes are 99%+ accurate.

Not trying to pick a fight or anything, just me $0.02.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Cult TV man is listing an earlier release, with premier kits even earlier.


----------



## starlord (Mar 30, 2011)

not a bad photo of it, but I like the model of the warbird that is sitting below it.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

H.Erickson said:


> Wow, thanks everyone. I guess I definately wasn't looking hard enough, again thanks guys.
> 
> She certainly is beautiful, I guess I wasn't expecting it so late in 2012 either. Looking at the pictures I can see now a lot of the issues people have been discussing.
> 
> ...


Are you thiking of making an armature for this beastie?


----------



## H.Erickson (Sep 1, 2005)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Are you thiking of making an armature for this beastie?


Hi Lou! It's been a while! You know me... I love the grand old girl but throwing that much weight out on those rather narrow incredibly vertical plastic nacelle supports makes me nervous, and you know me. I don't like nervous. I can't wait until she's released!

Plus I'm currently working to improve on the Refit's armature along with having a new fabricator make them for me, should the old girl be needing one in the not too distant future, it would just happen to be a great time to develop one for her.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Are you thiking of making an armature for this beastie?


I've already (mostly) designed my own internal framework. It will have some final tweaking to go into it before we proceed, but based upon the images provided (in the 1701-club newsletter), I've got the basic setup worked out.

Basically, I'm looking at hardwood inside. In particular, the pylons will be hardwood "sticks" with the kit plastic serving as a skin around them (wires in the rounded leading and trailing edges).

The final kit assembly (if they end up going with the markups seen last time out, in the newsletter) is going to be quite a bit more robust than what you see here, anyway... plus there's the issue of the material not being the same, and the issue of it not being glued together.

But still... I'd rather err on the side of being overcautious than end up with sagging nacelles (and sagging saucer for that matter!) a couple of years down the road.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

H.Erickson said:


> Hi Lou! It's been a while! You know me... I love the grand old girl but throwing that much weight out on those rather narrow incredibly vertical plastic nacelle supports makes me nervous, and you know me. I don't like nervous. I can't wait until she's released!
> 
> Plus I'm currently working to improve on the Refit's armature along with having a new fabricator make them for me, should the old girl be needing one in the not too distant future, it would just happen to be a great time to develop one for her.


Are you talking about an armature for the 1:350 TMP kit?

I'd love to see more info on that... this has been bothering me enough that I've held off on building up my refit, largely because of this issue. I haven't come up with a practical solution so far.. or rather, at least not one that I can do without access to a full toolshop (as in, industrial manufacturing capabilities).

I'd love to see what you're doing. Got a link?


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Hardwood will add too much weight to an already weakened structure. They are discussing a metal soon to be commercially available armature to be designed specifically for this kit like the one that was offered for the refit kit. I have one inside mine ,Highly recommended for both kits. I'd rethink the hardwood in favor of metal made from K&S stock, or wait for the afore mentioned one.


----------



## H.Erickson (Sep 1, 2005)

CLBrown said:


> Are you talking about an armature for the 1:350 TMP kit?
> 
> I'd love to see more info on that... this has been bothering me enough that I've held off on building up my refit, largely because of this issue. I haven't come up with a practical solution so far.. or rather, at least not one that I can do without access to a full toolshop (as in, industrial manufacturing capabilities).
> 
> I'd love to see what you're doing. Got a link?


I designed a steel one for the Refit six years ago and Steve at CultTvMan sells them. I attached a few pictures of one below. The Refit you see in the pictures only has a few pieces of masking tape holding the secondary hull and nacelles together, but that's it, no glue or any other support. 

http://www.culttvmanshop.com/Structural-Integrity-Devices-for-1350-Refit-Starships_p_392.html

I like everyboby else am waiting with anticipation for the new 1/350 TOS Enterprise to be released and that design I'm figuring is going to need an armature more then the refit. I just haven't been able to find any internal images of the model to even begin scheming one. I'm definately going to design one for myself, I just don't know if anyone else is interested in one where I should attempt to make them available.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

It is amazing how even a taped-together resin proto can look so good just by getting the shapes and proportions right.

I like how the old christmas lights are depicted behind the domes. Some were parallel to the axis, some perpendicular, thus the different light "shapes" during operation. (I like light...)

To add stiffeners to the nacelle struts (or even build a low-budget armature) consider the lightweight aluminum window-screen frame stuff found at your local building supplier (Home Depot et al,) It's cheap, and is essentially an aluminum box beam, so you've got a wire path. And it's cheap. Easy to cut with a basic hacksaw and you can create nodes by setting your angles and securing with a hunk of bondo, resin, epoxy, or chewing gum (only in arctic climates). Wrap the node first with a woven or non-woven fabric to add a stiffening matrix to the joint node resin structure. 

I won't mention the CTE*, but it's probably not a deal-breaker.


*coefficient of thermal expansion.

For a deluxe version, local shops may carry various carbon fiber rods, strips and hollow round and square tubes.


----------



## H.Erickson (Sep 1, 2005)

I personally love using carbon fiber, pound for pound it's stronger then steel. I use it extensively on my RC aircraft models.

It's just hard to beat steel for making compound curves and angles welding it along with maintaining strength.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

H.Erickson said:


> I personally love using carbon fiber, pound for pound it's stronger then steel. I use it extensively on my RC aircraft models.
> 
> It's just hard to beat steel for making compound curves and angles welding it along with maintaining strength.


I have two of your frames and I think the new kit will do well with one in steel to keep the cost resonable.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Ductapeforever said:


> Hardwood will add too much weight to an already weakened structure. They are discussing a metal soon to be commercially available armature to be designed specifically for this kit like the one that was offered for the refit kit. I have one inside mine ,Highly recommended for both kits. I'd rethink the hardwood in favor of metal made from K&S stock, or wait for the afore mentioned one.


It won't, it really won't.

The intention is for there to be a wooden "spine" inside of the secondary hull, likely shaped from a piece of dowel. At the aft end, I'll have a pair of hardwood plywood bulkheads (the thin plywood used in flying model aircraft) forming parallel volume just forward of the landing bay.. These will be attached with screws and glue to the "spine." The pylon cores (long wooden sticks with a rectangular cross-section) will be held between these bulkheads, and will attach to each other at the very centerline of the secondary hull.

The dorsal will have a core made of hardwood plywood as well, extensively shaped to fit the inside of the kit parts. It will have "cutouts" adjacent to the main rectangular windows (including some "through-cutouts" complete with little setpieces inside.

The primary hull will have a large circular "donut" of roughly 1/4" thick hardwood plywood which will be attached to the dorsal core.

So, the whole kit will basically be a styrene skin on top of a rigid hardwood framework.

Wood is very effective for this sort of construction. Just look at classic naval construction techniques.

I think what you were thinking is that I just intended for those pylon "cores" to be suspended in the existing plastic structure. That's not the case.

As far as metal goes... well, in this case, the weight-to-volume and rigidity-to-volume ratios are actually quite a bit better for wood versus metal, unless it's SOLID metal. Sheetmetal tends to be quite "bendy," honestly. While it would certainly be possible to make a very, very robust metal framework, it's just orders of magnitude easier to do what needs to be done with a wooden structure in this case.

Oh, and I can use carpenter's glue, nails, and screws... no need for welding. And I can shape the wooden shapes with a dremel and with sandpaper, files, etc, to have the "cores" EXACTLY fit the areas I'm mounting them against.

I originally planned on using metal... but abandoned that in favor of this approach.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

I believe you can see that Mr. Erickson's armatures are in fact solid steel ,and trust me they are very strong and light weight. once in place they completely eliminate any twist or sagging issues. Again I highly recommend their use in both kits as I trust he will design one for the TOS 'E". No fuss, no muss, reasonably priced, and absolutely necessary for 'proffesional results' with very little work involved. This is the 'one' assessory modelers should buy above any other aftermarket goodies period ! As an Aerospace Engineer of over 40 years experience, I am very impressed with the strength and design features of this product. This has been an unsolicited compensation free endorcement of the Erickson Armature, ...we now return you to our regularly schedualed program already in progress !


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Ductapeforever said:


> I believe you can see that Mr. Erickson's armatures are in fact solid steel ,and trust me they are very strong and light weight. once in place they completely eliminate any twist or sagging issues. Again I highly recommend their use in both kits as I trust he will design one for the TOS 'E". No fuss, no muss, reasonably priced, and absolutely necessary for 'proffesional results' with very little work involved. This is the 'one' assesory modelers should buy above any other aftermarket goodies period ! As an Aerospace Engineer of over 40 years experience, I am very impressed with the strength and design features of this product. This has been an unsolicited compensation free endorcement of the Erickson Armature, ...we now return you to our regularly schedualed program already in progress !


I'm seriously considering this armature for the 1701-A... it does look quite good!

It looks like he's using, what, 10 or 12 gauge steel plate in the dorsal, and the "rods" in the nacelle pylons look like they're about the same thickness, but are made from stock strip? I can't really tell much about what's going on inside the secondary hull, though. Is that setup able to let us use the kit "internal set" in that region?

How is the armature held together? Is it shipped "pre-welded? I don't have an oxyacetylene welding rig at home, after all... 

So you're an aerospace engineer? I started off my college time as an aerospace guy, but transferred (without changing my course load at all) to "Mechanical Engineering with Aerospace Emphasis" at the beginning of my junior year. That was a quarter-century ago, and only about 15% of my career has been in the aerospace world (mainly R&D on complex subsystems, not on airframe development per-se).

I've been talking with a company up in North Texas about a new position recently... no idea if it will come to fruition or not... and I can't talk about it right now. But if it comes through, it'll be something really amazing, and a tremendous amount of "nobody's ever done this before" aerospace-world fun. 

Forty years... are you still working, or has model-building for fun finally taken over your engineer-ish brain? :dude:


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Retired from the industry four years ago for medical reasons. I still do consulting as the government has my current phone number and just can't leave me alone. LOL ! A Proffessor 'Emeritus' at WSU and happily addicted to models nearly full time.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Needless Blather. (Removed)


----------



## H.Erickson (Sep 1, 2005)

Thanks Ductapeforever, I sincerely appreciate the endorsment!




CLBrown said:


> I'm seriously considering this armature for the 1701-A... it does look quite good!
> 
> It looks like he's using, what, 10 or 12 gauge steel plate in the dorsal, and the "rods" in the nacelle pylons look like they're about the same thickness, but are made from stock strip? I can't really tell much about what's going on inside the secondary hull, though. Is that setup able to let us use the kit "internal set" in that region?
> 
> How is the armature held together? Is it shipped "pre-welded? I don't have an oxyacetylene welding rig at home, after all...


 To answer some of your questions, the Refit armature is made of 3/16 inch plate steel and weighs about 15 ounces. The nacelle supports are made of 3/16 solid steel rod. I went a little overkill using the 3/16 inch plate steel but it can literally support a 100lb weight on it. The individual parts that make up the armature are welded together and are cut out by a computerized water jet steel cutter for precision. It comes assembled so no assembly is required. Also the stand tube is hollow and open on both ends to allow for wiring to pass through it into the model.
It's also desinged to "snake" through the secondary hull and not get in the way of anything with one exception. The stand tube does have to run through the arboretum. It was unavoidable but if painted white with some trees it just about disappears. The armature also has a port in it to allow for lighting the cargo bay/shuttle bay area. It also leaves space for lighting/wiring in the saucer and nacelles.
I've attached a few photos to try and help show how the armature fits in the Refit, hope this helps!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

H.Erickson said:


> I designed a steel one for the Refit six years ago and Steve at CultTvMan sells them. I attached a few pictures of one below. The Refit you see in the pictures only has a few pieces of masking tape holding the secondary hull and nacelles together, but that's it, no glue or any other support.
> 
> http://www.culttvmanshop.com/Structural-Integrity-Devices-for-1350-Refit-Starships_p_392.html
> 
> I like everyboby else am waiting with anticipation for the new 1/350 TOS Enterprise to be released and that design I'm figuring is going to need an armature more then the refit. I just haven't been able to find any internal images of the model to even begin scheming one. I'm definately going to design one for myself, I just don't know if anyone else is interested in one where I should attempt to make them available.


Tell you what... if you make something as robust as I'm thinking of, I MAY choose to go with what you've proposed in lieu of my wooden framing.

And, if you ever start selling the 1701-A frames again, well.. I think I'm definitely in the market for one of those for my "Refit." (I have two of them, but for the moment I only plan to buy one, and I haven't started on that because I've been convinced that sagging was going to be inevitable and HORRIBLE on that kit, long-term, without an internal frame.)

CultTVMan lists this as "out of stock," and that (plus the fact that, at the moment, $$$ is a bit tighter than I'd really like, mind you!) means that I can't buy it quite yet. But I can see this as an integral part of my second-release 1701 kit, likely built next summer.

The frame issue has been my sole reason for not starting that kit to date, actually. I couldn't come up with a practical frame I could make myself (lacking heavy metal-working capabilities at home).

EDIT:

Well, I posted that just as you posted your last post... and all I can say is... "Sweet."

I like it. A LOT.

I have no issue with the small intrusion into the arboretum. In fact, I think I'll just build up a small "wall box" in that location... perhaps some grape vines on a trellis? (So Captain Kirk has someplace to put the ship's hot tub?)

Three questions... 

1) What sort of angular control did you use here? I'm thinking tolerances. It doesn't look like I'd be able to straighten any potential warpage manually, huh? So, is the idea to encapsulate the metal bits (say, with epoxy) and the metal bits have a lot of clearance within the parts? Or did you just manage to keep this really, really precise?

2) What material did you use? It looks almost like "cast iron" but I'm pretty sure that it's not... and that what I'm seeing is a protecting coating of some sort.

3) Is the standpipe of the same diameter as the existing "stand rod?" In other words, will the base require significant modification and/or replacement in order to use this rig? (Not that this is a show-stopper, just wondering...)


----------



## H.Erickson (Sep 1, 2005)

CLBrown said:


> Tell you what... if you make something as robust as I'm thinking of, I MAY choose to go with what you've proposed in lieu of my wooden framing.
> 
> And, if you ever start selling the 1701-A frames again, well.. I think I'm definitely in the market for one of those for my "Refit." (I have two of them, but for the moment I only plan to buy one, and I haven't started on that because I've been convinced that sagging was going to be inevitable and HORRIBLE on that kit, long-term, without an internal frame.)
> 
> ...


The one that I design for the new 1/350 TOS Enterprise will be just as rebust as the Refit's. It's just a delicate balance between robustness and not getting in the way of other things. Also Steve/CultTvMan is currently out of stock but I have another batch literally in my wife's trunk right now waiting to go out Monday morning so he'll have a lot more very soon.


----------



## H.Erickson (Sep 1, 2005)

CLBrown said:


> EDIT:
> 
> Well, I posted that just as you posted your last post... and all I can say is... "Sweet."
> 
> ...


Tag! I guess I'm it!

A very gifted gentlman (username Krako) built a shroud around his tube stand in the arboretum (see attached photo). I believe he referred to it as Kirk's sauna or something.

Also the armature in the pictures is one of the original three prototypes (and the pictures themselves are about six years old) so that's why the armature in the photos looks a little beat up. As for materials, it's all solid steel nothing is cast. Also the tolerances are very tight. The stand tube is 1/2 inch in diameter and does not use the mounting hole provided in the Round 2 reissue Refit. The armature was designed for use with the Round 1 Refit which used those clear plastic stand rods that held up the saucer. With the Round 2 Refit nothing changed with regards to installing and using the armature, just that now you have an extra hole in the base of the secondary hull that needs to be sealed up. I personally REALLY am not fond of the Round 2 Refit's new stand as it transmits A LOT of stresses to a very small area of plastic in the secondary hull. It's my opinion but I think the new stand was perhaps an easy way to satisfy a popular dislike of the original stand.
The armature supports the saucer, secondary hull, and each nacelle seperately. The nacelle supports are very ridged but they can with a little bit of muscle can be adjusted to be perfect. The saucer requires a little more meticulousness as it needs a shim (typically a 1/4 shim is perfect). I also attached a copy of the installation instructions.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Wow. I haven't seen photos of that in ages. Such a super nice piece of work.

Even at half as robust as what you've got for the refit, the TOS "structural integrity field" is going to be amazing.


----------



## H.Erickson (Sep 1, 2005)

Paulbo said:


> Wow. I haven't seen photos of that in ages. Such a super nice piece of work.
> 
> Even at half as robust as what you've got for the refit, the TOS "structural integrity field" is going to be amazing.


Yah it's been a while, I went looking for some old photos from the original threads and was like wow, 2005?!!

I'll do my best with the new TOS Enterprise, I just need to get my hands on one!!! I guess I need to work on my patience...


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

Is the support rod hollow? In other words, can you run wires up it for lighting?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

H.Erickson said:


> Also the stand tube is hollow and open on both ends to allow for wiring to pass through it into the model.


Read!


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

see next


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

H.Erickson said:


> I personally love using carbon fiber, pound for pound it's stronger then steel. I use it extensively on my RC aircraft models.
> 
> It's just hard to beat steel for making compound curves and angles welding it along with maintaining strength.



Nice r/c plane. That is a big boy!!!


----------



## H.Erickson (Sep 1, 2005)

KUROK said:


> Nice r/c plane. That is a big boy!!!


Thanks!

Flying RC planes is my "other" hobby, saying that I almost feel like I'm having an affair as I've been building static models my whole life.
The airplane in the picture is actually my biggest plane. It's a Wild Hare Extra 300L 50cc 84inch wingspan 3D aerobatic plane. My son and I have a varity of smaller planes that we fly together. It's amazing how the skills that I learned doing fine detail static models has really enhanced the planes that I fly and work on. I get so many requests from people asking me to do detail and custom work on their planes as the vast majority of fliers are more interested in flying then learning how to build. The plane in the picture actually fell victim to mice last winter where they attempted to make a home out of it. They did about $300 damage chewing at least half of the balsa out of it and damaging a lot of plywood from being soaked in urine. I was told by many the plane was totaled, but being a modeler I looked at the situation as an oppurtunity to get creative with the plane. After cutting out all of the damage I decided to convert it to an Extra 300s single seater from a two seater, lighten the airframe by using carbon fiber to enhance strength and performance, clean up all of the seems, and mate all of the various surfaces for a much cleaner airframe. I'm getting a better airplane, and also saving myself $600 on a new airframe. All because I can apply my modeling and fabrication skills.

However, building static models is still my 1st passion though.


----------

