# Refit Assembly



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

Suggestions, tips on assembly.

Post them here.


----------



## chunkeymonkey (May 4, 2004)

have'nt got mine in the uk yet.

what's people's general plan for this?

assemble then paint...or....paint then assemble with minor filling and touch up's ???

once i get the kit i will be able to see for myself just wondering what peoples first impression is for tackling this project, mine will include lighting too.


----------



## SFCOM1 (Sep 3, 2002)

For me, I would guess the standard:

Build and putty sub assemblies

Paint sub assemblies

Base coat sub assemblies

Aztec sub assemblies

Seal sub assemblies

Build Major assemblies

Gloss coat Major assemblies

Build and paint stand

Decal all assemblies

Seal with dull coat

Mount on stand

Enjoy with pride, become the envy of the block, and post pics on the Hobby Talk BBS!

Some of the above might be modified once i get the kit in my greedy little hands! 

John Nelson
sfcom1

Making mine the TMP version!


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

Well, I did a simple "put the model together with tape" to see how parts fit, and plan how I was gonna tackle, and found some issues.

1. Some of the pins on parts can break off easily. straight from the bag, 1 of the pins where the pylons connect to the nacelles was almost off the part... nothign a little superglue didn't fix. Similar issue with teh pins on the neck where the saucer connects.. one of teh pins was broken off, so make sure all the pins are there, and be careful with em!

2. I noticed that some of the clear parts were not easily identified on the trees, specifically parts 238, 258, 237, 257. They are marked on teh instrauctions one way, and on the tree marked another way. Can cause some confusion, so make sure you double check.

3. Dry fit all parts. I also found that some of the window inserts, while using the correct version from the tree as per insructions, it did not insert flush into the hull, specifically parts 291. I did not check all 4 pieces of that part (2 on each of teh duplicated trees) but I found 1 works on the left side, but the right side didn't flush, actually went out past the hull at an odd angle.

4. Full read instrauctions. It is temptng to want to jump right in, but read it all first, then get started. Some things need to be done first, so pay attentions.

5. Sub-Assemble. This kit is HUGE, so plan on building it a section at a time, instead of all at once. Much easier to handle smaller sections for detail work (painting) rather than the whole bug model.

6. And of course... plan ahead. I suggest to everyone to fully build it up (maybe without all teh little clear inserts) so you have a good idea of how it all fits. Then it will be much easier to tackle when glue is involved, and cause less errors


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

So, How do the nacelles work out for those of you that have it already? Do they line up nicely with minimal effort? Do they need any special tricks like the VHS cassette trick with the AMT kit?


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

guartho said:


> So, How do the nacelles work out for those of you that have it already? Do they line up nicely with minimal effort? Do they need any special tricks like the VHS cassette trick with the AMT kit?


They are perfect. No trouble at all.


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

jgoldsack said:


> They are perfect. No trouble at all.


"And in those times it was found that the nacelles didst not sag, but instead staid straight and proud. And a Heavenly chorus of angels sang the glories of the one called Sasser in recognition of his gift to man-kind, so sayeth the modelers."*






*Actual Heavenly chorus dependent on how MY nacelles turn out and will not actually be heard until such time.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Aaaamennnn!!!!


----------



## tripdeer (Mar 7, 2004)

So say we all!!!


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

My intention is to use small screws and nuts for certain assemblies, and will likely build an interior metal frame around which to build the model. I want this thing to be robust, to prevent sagging and cracking of the paint job. 

I'll paint the model using metallics, toned down to reduce sheen. The effect I produced using masks, Testors Metalizers, and plastic styrene convinced me this is the route to go. The intention in the film was to create a ship that looked like it was made of metal. The pearlescent crap everyone is so obsessed about was simply a tool to enable the miniature to be filmed without all the complications of actually filming a metallic object. I have no intention of painting anything pale blue or pale green or whatever. No gloss coat will be used either, since that makes a kit look like a toy. 

I will light the vehicle using ultra-bright LEDs and fiber optics, which work very well for spot beams as well. My navigation lights will not flash, since they don't flash on aircraft anyway (I'm not worried about canon - this is my Enterprise). I will have flashing anti-collision lights. Thrusters will not be lit up, because why would they be (same goes for torpedo tubes)? The inboard warp grills will glow deep purple, as I love the color and do not want glaring blue light reflecting all over the place. Bright lights (other than anti-collision) simply look toyish.

As for the deflector dish, I think I will paint this copperish, with a regular, ray-like pattern of panels. I will light up the ring of squares that encircle the dish, however. 

I intend to redo the botanical section to be more of a lounge with people walking around. The hangar deck will be lit up and cluttered with activity, and I intend to include rails from 1/350 brass detail sets. 

The finished ship will be installed on a long, finished wood plank similar to those used for wooden ships, complete with two brass stands upon which the Enterprise will be affixed. Wiring will be routed through the brass stands and out through the board to an outlet. A brass plaque will also be attached to the board.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

*saucer section*

just got mine, wonder why they made the saucer section in so many parts?
i 'm thinking the saucer will need something to secure it to the dorsal more than glue. a bolt maybe all the way thru to the main body? into a stand maybe?


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

guartho said:


> Do they need any special tricks like the VHS cassette trick with the AMT kit?


Hu? Never heard about that trick. Could you share it?


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

*Question*

What do you guys plan on doing in order to feed wiring thru the warp pylons? I mean, considering stability, what is the best way to get wiring to the secondary hull? I though simply about drilling a hole, but then I thought this may weaken the pylons?


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

cinc2020 said:


> My intention is to use small screws and nuts for certain assemblies, and will likely build an interior metal frame around which to build the model. I want this thing to be robust, to prevent sagging and cracking of the paint job.
> 
> I'll paint the model using metallics, toned down to reduce sheen. The effect I produced using masks, Testors Metalizers, and plastic styrene convinced me this is the route to go. The intention in the film was to create a ship that looked like it was made of metal. The pearlescent crap everyone is so obsessed about was simply a tool to enable the miniature to be filmed without all the complications of actually filming a metallic object. I have no intention of painting anything pale blue or pale green or whatever. No gloss coat will be used either, since that makes a kit look like a toy.
> 
> ...


 kind of like "Pimp my 'Prize"?


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*?*

I guess one might look at it like that.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Cinc, will you paint subassemblies or assemble everything and then paint it?


----------



## jwrjr (Oct 31, 2003)

It seems to me that with a lighted model you need to light-proof and paint as much as possible before doing anything else.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

James, I agree totally but a while back I was told by Cinc that the best modeler's (and I paraphrase) "assemble everything first and then paint". I was wondering if the size of this kit had changed his feelings on that.


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

my only problem is masking the clear windows????


----------



## idman (Apr 11, 2004)

use liquid mask or elmers glue to mask the windows


----------



## chunkeymonkey (May 4, 2004)

i plan to give the inside of the model a couple of coats of black primer and then check for opaqueness.

in those area's that require maximum light i will paint the inside of that area with silver.

so my first process will be:

1. clean all parts in luke warm water with a little detergent.

2. dry all parts thoroughly.

3. spray all parts black on the inside (will try to mask all the glue points and edges.

4. test assemble kit with some lighting components and check for opaqueness and go back to 3 if required.

well that's what i have planned for now.


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

Hey! elmers glue! sounds brilliant but does it remove easaly from the clear plastic? maybe I'll test it out on the nx-01 windows.


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*Painting whole thing*

I will paint the primary hull, scondary hull (with dorsal and pylons attached), and engines - all separately as four big subassemblies. The attachment points for all take place along seams that need not be covered or otherwise obscured. The subassembly thing will also help in trnsporting the model. I am thinking of using a brass pin interface, since attachment points will be relatively weak.

The electrical connections between units will be designed to attach and detach along female-male connectors. All fiber optics will be internal within the subassemblies, as will be the LEDs and so forth. I think that may work.


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

so I am about 50% done with the cargo bay and arboritum, anyone else have the guts to actually build the monster or just look at the parts and buy more to store in the attic?


----------



## idman (Apr 11, 2004)

Check This out....http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=111476


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

*scale*

cool Idman, need a can of coke or pepsi for scale tho.


----------



## Heavens Eagle (Jun 30, 2003)

Got the case today. Opened the most damaged box and gave a good friend of mine the second most damaged kit. The other 2 are on the shelf. In fitting my first kit I have found a couple of small problems. 

Specifically they are problems with 3 of the windows. The worst is the rearmost left side elongated window on the bridge. Mine is tilted from level and will have to be reshaped, filled slightly and opened to correct size to fix. 

The other 2 windows are really spotlights that are for up along the outside of the engine pylons. They are located just below and in front of each pylon. The hole is oval shaped and unfortunately the angle of the actual hole (required for molding) goes straight in. To get the lighting lens to angle right will require some removal of material behind the hole on the bottom side.

The fit is as good as could be expected for a kit this size. 3 laqrge rubber bands and 16 pieces of tape basically held it all together. A slight amount of sag on the engines, but then again not glued either. The sag was just the looseness in the joints of the parts.

As to wiring for the engines, consider this arrangement. If done right with controlling circuitry, only one ground or minus (-) wire is needed for all lights. Then only one plus (+) wire for regular constant "ON" lights, another plus (+) wire from strobe circuitry to strobe lights. There might be a need for possibly a few more plus wires depending on the circuitry used, but there is no need for 2 wires to each light. Remember, when possible to wire lights in parallel rather than series.

Lastly, for me, I am going to thin down the inside of the dish halves. The dish roughly weighs in at about the same weight as the engines and the secondary hull all together. I know it had to be done that way in order to even produce the parts. They had to be thick enough to allow flow and not warp out of the mold. I suspect that a considerable amount of plastic could be removed from the inside with a die grinder or equivalent without causing problems structurally to the part. I think if some ribbing were to be left in certain areas it would be ideal. With the dish part lightened the model could be mounted say with a single post to a nice base. Lightening the dish would move the center of gravity of the model to the rear and would lighten the stresses on the neck of the kit.


----------



## jwrjr (Oct 31, 2003)

I use a common (+) lead and do my switching in the (-) leads. There are certain advantages in doing it that way, but it is mostly a matter of preference.


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

The only stubborn fit I've had so far are the clear parts for the windows on the sides of the torpedo bay bulge. To me,(it seems) the indented area meant to cross behind the docking port is still interfering with the proper seating of the part...so I broke the part at that point, removed it, and it set fine.

When I do the next one (Oh, God, WHERE am I going to put it?!  ), I think I'll Dremel out the areas in the saucer rims right behind the window clusters...that should allow me to fit the fiber optics there... :thumbsup:


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Cinc 2020: Hmmmm. It's a free country. The reason everyone keeps mentioning the pearlescent (crap, as you referred to) paint job is because-well, it was a pearlescent paint job. And just about every other color and sheen in between. I would also like to think that a movie studio producing multi million dollar films would not have to paint a model pearl to avoid filming a metallic miniature. If they wanted the Enterprise to look like bare metal, it would have. Check out "Star Trek: Enterprise". 

The great thing about modeling is that you can do what you want. But at the end of the day the question is; how much does it look like what it's supposed to be. I could paint a Ferrari flat gray with polka dots, but you don't see very many of them like that in the real world, nor would I walk up to Mr. Enzo and tell him "Thats the way it's supposed to be!".

Perhaps it was not your intention, but your comments come off as making others seem wrong for wanting to depict the ship as it appears on film and behind the scenes.


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*?*

Nope, not my intention. You can paint it red for all I care. 

I call the pearlescent paint job c**p because that's what I think. Not because it's wrong. It's an artistic assessment. I think Picasso's later work is c**p, too. But who cares what I think?

Folks should do whatever suits them and not worry about what other people (like myself) think. Indeed, I am using metallizers for my ship, and a lot of folks think that's insane...


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

I don't think using the word crap here is appropriate... but combining metalizers and pearls sounds kind of cool... I realize cinc-crap isn't using pearls at all... but I plan on using the extra hull bottom for a test of using both!


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

I am gonna paint mine with a funky romulon color scheme!

yeah.. that's the ticket!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I agree with the Picasso thing!


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*c**p*

Ok. I'll refrain from using c**p, but personal name-calling is silly (drewid142). If you think c**p is harsh to describe art, you haven't been around art critics...


----------



## idman (Apr 11, 2004)

grantf said:


> Hey! elmers glue! sounds brilliant but does it remove easaly from the clear plastic? maybe I'll test it out on the nx-01 windows.


It's a little tough to remove sometime but if your paint is really dry a damp cloth with a little water will take it right off..


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

cinc... sorry 'bout name calling... didn't mean to come out that way... just typed a reference to "the guy talking about matallics" and wanted to discourage the cr*p stuff. 

I think the idea of using both metallic and pearles sounds interesting... any thoughts on how the two will go together? I won't be able to start for months as we are in the middle of a remodel of the house... but I'm studying the parts and planning some custom photo-etch on the computer with paper test fits.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

*In the windows*

I'm testing out backlit panels in the windows... any thoughts...

What are the life-span issues with lightsheet as opposed to long lasting LEDs?

Light sheet would be sooo much easier to implement... but I want it to last... so I may bite the bullet and get out the dremel and make room for LEDs... but I'd love to hear from some more experienced lighter-types.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

I screwed around a bunch with the NX-01 but never built her... yet... so now I'm applying my ideas to the Enterprise... what I want is to see ceiling lights when I look up from below, and some depth and complexity in the interior spaces when I look at the windows... related to the backlit idea outlined above.


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*No problem*

No problem, drewid142. I misunderstood.

Anyway, I know nothing about lightsheet but want to play around with it. I was considering using some for the nacelles. Is that a corridor tracing the circumference of the primary hull? Interesting.

My plan for the windows is to build little rooms with suggestions of color, then route fiber optics to the "ceilings" producing indirect lighting. My hope is that this will replicate the illusion of lit rooms. The clear plastic will need to be thinned and polished, because they are way to thick right now.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

I gave a lot of thought to doing exactly that... little rooms... for the NX-01... and concluded that it was an enourmouse modeling job that would be almost invisible and very difficult to get the desired lighting effect... so I moved onto the Backlit color inkjet sheets I am pursuing now. My first experiments are very promising. I think I'll have to pump up the black values to keep them from looking a bit washed out, but I get photographic complexity easily using this technique. I'm thinking about dropping a few little figures into the halls, and maybe some other geometry to add depth to the effect.


----------



## Treadwell (Aug 22, 2002)

drew, that is an awesome approach. Mind you, I don't think any corridors run along the outer hull--rooms do.  Still, it gives the eye a hint of SOMETHING being behind those windows, which is a good thing.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

Are there any "floorplans" anywhere to look at? I've searched. I'd make it "accurate" if I could find good reference... but I'm not a "trekkie" so my effort will be limited to what I need to achieve what I think is cool... but I think accurate is cool when it doesn't get in my way. I'm planning a major change to the botanical garden... not accurate... but very cool.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

drewid142, this is a very cool idea. What material are you printing this cutout onto? Cardstock? Transparent film?


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

Backlit film for Ink Jet printer

One side is matte for printing, the other side is glossy/clear

The image is sharper on the Matte side so I'm facing that side out, and the glossy/clear side is facing the light source... not the usual way... but since these are inside the ship... the image surfgace doesn't need the protection of the clear glossy side


----------



## idman (Apr 11, 2004)

Ok gentlemen ran into my first problem with the refit. 
After doing a dry fit I notice a big gap in the sec hull pylons. when I hook in the pylons to each part of the hull they went flush to the conector then when I put the pylon and sec hull together theres a gap from the pylon conection back to the shuttle area. from what I can tell it looks like the part that hooks the plyons to the sec is too thick. any idea on how to thin the areas that attach the pylons to the sec hull pieces. The gap is way too big to fill with putty


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Hello my friends For those of you who intend to light the refit, could you tell me the best way to run the wires thru the Warp pylons into the secondary hull? Are you guys simply sanding a trench?


----------



## Scorpitat (Oct 7, 2004)

Raist,
I have a 30 man team of starfleet engineers working on it, with laser drills, tunnel borers, and even a backhoe. Should take them 3 months to dig out the channels I require.

Just kidding! ( I hadda throw that in there.......my Wrath of Khan flashback is now complete! ) LOL


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

Raist3001 said:


> Hello my friends For those of you who intend to light the refit, could you tell me the best way to run the wires thru the Warp pylons into the secondary hull? Are you guys simply sanding a trench?



All you need to do is just put a channel in the bottom of the pylons, where the connectors are that connect them to the hull. The pylongs themselves have plenty of room.. it is jsut those pesky connectors.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

*Bolt counters need not see this...*

I'm laying out custom Photo-etch parts to build this for my botanical garden... NOT accurate... but very cool. I bought 70 dollars worth of train set tree, grass, and ballast stuff... and have been screwing around with making eensy-weensie trees... and have been inspired by the awesome botanical gardens that have been posted.

This will require me to modify the hangar bay... shortening it and eliminating the forward lower area to accomodate the expanded garden.

well... it wasn't actually 70 dollars worth of tree stuff... I also got a fancy pair of tweezers.

...unlike the outlandish NX-01 postings I made months ago... I'll be posting actual photographs of physical objects soon!

I almost flunked out of college over 20 years ago because I got obsessed with this spacecraft design... I am so pumped... and gratefull.. to have this kit to vent my uber-nerd-hood into!


----------



## compucrap (Dec 16, 2000)

drewid142 said:


> I'm laying out custom Photo-etch parts to build this for my botanical garden... NOT accurate... but very cool. I bought 70 dollars worth of train set tree, grass, and ballast stuff... and have been screwing around with making eensy-weensie trees... and have been inspired by the awesome botanical gardens that have been posted.
> 
> This will require me to modify the hangar bay... shortening it and eliminating the forward lower area to accomodate the expanded garden.
> 
> ...


God speed my crazy imspired friend!

Josh


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

*Botanical Test Fit - ROUGH*

I tried out a quick test fit with paper...

I'll be cutting down into the walking surface (and the structural elements below) and making a bit of a valley in the garden.

The hallways will be backlit film walls and ceiling... which is how I'm doing all the interior spaces seen through the windows.


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

Hey, has anything been said about the planetary sensor? I just noticed that it's totally opaque. I was expecting clear. I've not got ye olde DVD collection handy. Am I crazy to believe it had a slight blue glow?


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Yes (sadly) you are crazy. :wave:


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

But not mad...

It's that pearlescent thing going on that makes it look likes it's glowing blue... but it's not... but it looks like it is. But is it? Is it not? AHHH hAHAHHHA HHAHhh haaa


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

LOL! You're too funny


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

TrekFX said:


> Yes (sadly) you are crazy. :wave:


Wouldn't be the first time. When I was younger (as in hadn't been reading long young) I would've sworn to you that the Ent-A was in TMP-TSFS and the ship in TVH & TFF (all there was at the time) was the Ent-B. I figured I had to be crazy or someone else would've mentioned it.


----------



## idman (Apr 11, 2004)

Ok How do you put in parts 218 and 219 I'm getting a headache trying to figure this out


----------



## user1127 (Jun 11, 2002)

FYI - My first Refit kit had an extra lower secondary hull - is this the chaser kit? I have 2 more sitting in storage - maybe one has an extra sacuer half (lol).


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

user1127 said:


> FYI - My first Refit kit had an extra lower secondary hull - is this the chaser kit? I have 2 more sitting in storage - maybe one has an extra sacuer half (lol).


No they come with parts to make both the Refit and the 1701-A. The bottoms are different, thus the 2 engineering hull bottoms.


----------



## Heavens Eagle (Jun 30, 2003)

removed pics and post to prevent confusion on parts 218 and 219.


----------



## chunkeymonkey (May 4, 2004)

has anyone tried a led shining up through the lens to see if casts right kind of spotlight onto the dorsal neck???


----------



## jamesk (May 23, 2003)

*Incorrect placement*

I've got news for you all since nobody's figured this out yet. This is NOT the way these little clear plastic pieces go in. 

The Flat side points UP. Do it this way and the parts fit perfectly. Also, look at some of the pictures of the filming studio model in this area. You'll see what I mean.

Spread the word.

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/STMPEnterpriseEngColor.htm


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Actually no, they do go in that way. They are recessed spotlights angled to shine in specific directions on the hull. They are not flat.


----------



## idman (Apr 11, 2004)

Ok so how do they go in then. It looks like i'll have to try and scratch build something to make it look like it does in the reference pics.


----------



## Heavens Eagle (Jun 30, 2003)

They definitely don't go on the top which is how it shows in the plans.

OK going by the one photo in the group that jamesk has the links to seems to indicate that to do it right will require the 2 openings in the "neck" to be opened up so that the top of the clear piece will fit up flush with the surface. The holes are not very good in the neck piece and thus it will take some work to make it look good.


----------



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

All I can say is...

Get well soon, Thomas! 

Though I walk through the valley of the darkness of screwing up my first Refit,
I fear no evil, for eventually Thomas will be with us...

Hope he heals well and regains his strength.
Looks like he'll have a lot of questions waiting for him when he hopefully comes back strong in June. 

Seriously, these issues will eventually be overcome.
I hope we get to see at least one more 1/350th kit out of PL.

And eventually a 1/350th TOS E from someone working with Thomas.


----------



## chunkeymonkey (May 4, 2004)

OK SO HERE'S A PLAN.

get a super bright led and sand the top a flat section.

use ca to attach it to either 218/219 and test fit it into hole and hook up the led to a power source and see how the pattern of light is dispersed.

i havent looked at this piece yet myself and i would say IMHO that the flat side should be facing outwards.

looks lik the tri-angular pieces are set up as prisms to allow the light from inside to be deflected onto the dorsal.


----------



## idman (Apr 11, 2004)

chunkeymonkey said:


> OK SO HERE'S A PLAN.
> 
> get a super bright led and sand the top a flat section.
> 
> ...


Hate to say but it looks like you're right Monkey Even the instructions flat side up.


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

Just starting out with this kit, should I wash the parts prior to assembly?


A basic sort of question but I don't usually bother - but a kit this size though would really screw up my day if the paint went funny!

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Give it a nice, warm bath with some Simple Green or your favorite grease-cutting dishwashing liquid. Once it's squeaky clean, have at it.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

I laid the part 218 into the left dorsal half, from the inside, flat side up. It's keyed to fit snugly. What I suspect happens is this: the prismatic shapes face to the inside of the model. A LED source shining through those parts will be directed at an inward angle to the neck. The priniciple behind this is internal reflection.

Judging from the studio model photos, these spots are NOT protruding lenses, but are recessed below the plane of the surface.


----------



## idman (Apr 11, 2004)

yeah I guess so and since i'm doing mine powered down I guess I'll have to figure out another way


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Seeing as just about all of the little spotlights were faked using an external light and a bunch of dental mirrors, I would advise folks not getting too upset if they can't get the lights to look right on the ship. From a practical standpoint, many of them are flat out impossible to do without duplicating what Trumbull did with the aforementioned light and mirrors.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

And Captain April gets the prize.

This is intended to be an accurate reproduction of the studio model, and so it is. While the internal spots are POSSIBLE, I would not expect to be able to do it without modifying the kit beyond what is strictly accurate to the only real NCC-1701-A.


----------



## Heavens Eagle (Jun 30, 2003)

Actually, I believe that the dental mirror "thing" was for some spots on the hull while in drydock and there is at least one photo that supports this. I am not so sure about the illumination on the hull and engines on the studio9 model. Remember, the studio model was huge compared to our 35" long kit. This kit of course should be more possible to light as the studio model than the old Ertle kit. (uck) We just need to be creative and to be honest the stock kit lenses might need to be replaced with some higher quality shaped and polished lenses to do the light projection properly. Other processes like sanding the inside of the clear window pieces so that they are a whitish finish and then projecting a white LED on this surface at an angle could do more to light up the windows than anything.


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

Humm, looks that this part is going to be fun!


----------



## fruggle (May 8, 2005)

*Which parts for which type?*

Hi,
I am new to modelling sci fi and have not built any kits for many years. I could not resist the big E though...

The instructions are not clear on which parts to use for which version. I wonder if anyone could list the alternative parts with which version they apply to. I would like the movie Enterprise if possible.

Many thanks for any help.

fruggle. (Old man, little knowledge :wave: )


----------



## B.Wildered (Apr 25, 2004)

There is a guy at the Cult TV Man site that successfully got spotlights in his ERTL NCC-1701A, using model railroad lights. Check it out, and see what you think.

Also, nobody answered the question about using Elmer's glue for the little windows. Is it indeed easy to remove after you've done your painting and overcoating?

Brian


----------



## Heavens Eagle (Jun 30, 2003)

I could have sworn that I saw a "works great" post on the elmers glue mask. I just don't remember now where I saw it.


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

B.Wildered said:


> There is a guy at the Cult TV Man site that successfully got spotlights in his ERTL NCC-1701A, using model railroad lights. Check it out, and see what you think.
> 
> Also, nobody answered the question about using Elmer's glue for the little windows. Is it indeed easy to remove after you've done your painting and overcoating?
> 
> Brian


yeah, it peels right off, in some cases still liquid. Just be sure to let the paint dry all the way first. :thumbsup:


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

fruggle said:


> Hi,
> The instructions are not clear on which parts to use for which version. I wonder if anyone could list the alternative parts with which version they apply to. I would like the movie Enterprise if possible.


Oh, but they are! There is a little text block in the upper right corner which tells you which optional parts are to be used for which version.

Greetings from Germany
Marco


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

Is the VIP lounge making anyone else scratch their heads? I can't figure out how it's supposed to go in there. No matter what I try there are huge gaps around the edges and I can see into the rest of the model.


----------



## fruggle (May 8, 2005)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Oh, but they are! There is a little text block in the upper right corner which tells you which optional parts are to be used for which version.
> 
> Greetings from Germany
> Marco


OOPS  
I guess I just ignored the French.
Thanks for that Marco.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Guartho, I've noticed that too. I wasn't sure if the gaps were intentional (in order to allow light into the lounge), or just a bad fit on mine. Regardless, you can see the gaps through the window, so I've been thinking I'd fill it in with putty or some spare styrene.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Is anyone planning to do a cutaway based on the Kimble artwork?


----------



## compucrap (Dec 16, 2000)

Has anyone determined if the primary hull can be supported by the secondary hull without any added bracing? The 6 prong connection at the top of the neck seems pretty study, with super glue I think it might hold it without the aid of those plastic chop sticks.

Josh


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

compucrap said:


> Has anyone determined if the primary hull can be supported by the secondary hull without any added bracing? The 6 prong connection at the top of the neck seems pretty study, with super glue I think it might hold it without the aid of those plastic chop sticks.
> 
> Josh


I wouldn't use CA on that joint. I'm using liquid glue and maybe some epoxy for good measure, that saucer is heavy!

John

www.apollosaturn.com


----------



## omnimodel (Oct 9, 2004)

Agreed. That joint has the highest stress on the entire assembly. I'd use liquid (MEK based) glue to weld the plastic, and small screws with washers on the inside. It worked great on the 22"... I'll probably use the same technique here.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

lastguardian said:


> Is anyone planning to do a cutaway based on the Kimble artwork?


Kimble's poster is my bible, for my Star Trek V era cut-away project. It's a great pity Mr. Scott's guide didn't have more room/deck plans. Right now, I'm trying to work out how the Intermix shaft works with the Impulse engines, the saucer disconnect point, and the 'anti matter' plant down on the bottom.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

omnimodel said:


> Agreed. That joint has the highest stress on the entire assembly. I'd use liquid (MEK based) glue to weld the plastic,


MEK means what? Is this something special or "usual" liquid styrene glue?

Greetings from Germany
Marco


----------



## chunkeymonkey (May 4, 2004)

M E K

METHYL ETHYL KETONE

thats of the top of my head but thats approxmiately what it is.

i have used it at work a cleaning agent for composite repairs on helicopter main rotor blades.

but yes, it does a very good job at melting plastics.

especially when someone at work cleaned a whiteboard with some and it melted...it was so funny... :drunk:


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*More than you need*

I've also worked with MEK in the military. That stuff is way too strong for model applications. A simple plastic cement or epoxy is enough to attach the primary hull to the dorsal. Indeed, a dry fit was very tight, and no sag was apparent. 

No need to make a model a big nightmare by using highly toxic chemicals and overly complex procedures.

You can certainly do whatever you want, of course. Just my opinion.


----------



## B.Wildered (Apr 25, 2004)

Testors liquid cement contains MEK, but I don't know in what concentration. Marco, it works by depolymerizing styrene, then as the organic volatiles outgas, the styrene repolymerizes. I suspect you already knew that, however. In fact, if someone out there with a background in O-Chem could elaborate, I would like to know more (being a physicist, not a chemist).
Brian


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*Mek*

Hm. True enough. I thought someone was going to use straight MEK. Nasty stuff.


----------



## omnimodel (Oct 9, 2004)

cinc2020 said:


> Hm. True enough. I thought someone was going to use straight MEK. Nasty stuff.


Nope, just talking about good old Testors Liquid cement. It is definitely not for the casual modeler, since when the two pieces are mated together you will see a bead similar to what you see when two pieces of metal are welded together.

The upshot is that you can wet sand the joint after it dries, and you will have a single piece of styrene, both visually and structurally. The downside is that if you make a mistake and don't catch it right away, you'll have to cut the pieces apart. It'll also do a number on any unprotected fiber optics.

Not sure what thinning ratio Testors uses, but it's about half the strength of straight MEK. I tried it out when I was in a pinch and couldn't get the Testors... the straight MEK causes about twice the squeezeout and takes twice as long to set up. Odd thing is, it seems to have less odor to it compared to the Testors.

Anyway, all that said it's really a matter of what you are comfortable with as a modeler. If you are worried about joint strength, want to make your model a single piece of plastic, and don't mind the extra sanding, you may want to give liquid cement a try. If not, CA (superglue) works great also.


----------



## compucrap (Dec 16, 2000)

omnimodel said:


> Odd thing is, it seems to have less odor to it compared to the Testors.


That smell is actually added by testors, its the drug that keeps us coming back to it.

Josh


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

UH Listen Sorry to be an Idiot But I won't have my refit until I pay my Uncle $40.00 lol (In a nutshell I had my Unc in VA. Order it for me where it will stay till he gets the $$ this way I don't miss out. I hear they're Selling FAST yet I was Broke trying to buy a House!) SO anyhoo What Are you guys Talkin' about "The VHS Trick" I read this on Page One And I see NO more mention of this in the rest of this thread.Now I'm curious for Goshsakes! lol I'm Saving EVERY bit of Info I'm getting from ya' I WISH I could light it But I'll be happy just to BUILD it! So listen I thank ALL of you for allowing me to Learn from your Mistakes AND your Sucsseses I don't think I've EVER been able to give a project as Much Pre-thought as this (well I have no choice lol) So thanks for the Info
JOHN/LONFAN


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

There's a move afoot on SSM to enlarge the fantail to make it match the hanger bay door curve. I thought that the doors were the problem, not the fantail. Can someone shed some light on this? I was prepared to make new doors, not try to change the curve of the fantail.

John

www.apollosaturn.com


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

John Duncan said:


> There's a move afoot on SSM to enlarge the fantail to make it match the hangar bay door curve. I thought that the doors were the problem, not the fantail. Can someone shed some light on this? I was prepared to make new doors, not try to change the curve of the fantail.


The fantail is correct. The doors are incorrect. They are somewhat squared when looking down from the top, whereas they ought to be round like the fantail (and that's one of the corrections Thomas submitted but that wasn't made before the kit went into production). The only mention I've seen is someone wanting to correct the doors, not the fantail. Personally, I'm working on new, open doors (and may put them in so that I could put the closed doors outside of them), as well as scratch-building a STV hangar bay.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

After looking closely (ie superimposing profile photos of the kit part and studio model fantails) it sure looks that the doors are a close match (though you are right in saying they are a little squared-off in the top plan view) but the fantail is a little short as well as a little "thin" in the aftmost deck.

Check out the thread.

It's a picky little detail that probably would have gone unnoticed if the curves of the door and fantail matched. On a kit of this stature, there's bound to be a little something here and there. Overall, what a delight!


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking those guys at all. To each, his own, as they say. Those guys do good work.

I've had to put the Refit on hold whilst I finish my Real Space entries for the Atlanta Nationals anyway. I'm sure there will be a consensus by the time I start on it again.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

No offense here... after all, I'm "one of those guys..." :thumbsup:

And, BTW, I've been a fan of yours for some time. Wonderful site you have. I have a great sense of nostalgia and respect for the days of Apollo.


----------



## Heavens Eagle (Jun 30, 2003)

Umm (for those of us that don't haunt every modeling bnoard out there) What does SSM stand for?


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

TrekFX said:


> No offense here... after all, I'm "one of those guys..." :thumbsup:
> 
> And, BTW, I've been a fan of yours for some time. Wonderful site you have. I have a great sense of nostalgia and respect for the days of Apollo.


I appreciate that. I have been really lucky to have been able to stomp through the archives at the Kennedy Space Center and scan and copy things. It's like a big puzzle we don't have all the pieces for yet.

John

www.apollosaturn.com


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Heavens Eagle said:


> Umm (for those of us that don't haunt every modeling bnoard out there) What does SSM stand for?


*S*tar*s*hip *M*odeler: http://www.starshipmodeler.com

Greetings from Germany
Marco


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

I Used to use MEK to remove Paint/Ink from Stencils for Traffic Signs at a Place in Brunswick Ga. We had this room that we'd have to go in to Hose the Silk Screens down,talk about a stench! I had NO Idea that this stuff would Bond Plastics sounds risky but whatda I know? lol 
JOHN/LONFAN


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

*Hangar Deck Customizers*

For the Hangar Deck Customizers out there, check out the matte shot from TMP...

http://movies.trekpulse.com/album/displayimage.php?album=152&pos=0


Notice at the base of the turbolift on the left there is what appears to be a robotic forklift maneuvering a cargo container into place.


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*y*

Nice images, thanks for posting those.

I have been cutting up the hangar bay parts as I try to make the bay more interesting. The eight square features toward the end of the bay (on each side) appear to be windows for some sort of gallery. I cut these out and squared the ends with a file. Kind of a pain in the arse, actually.

I also drilled out the little depressions that run the length of the aft segment of the hangar (shown as little blue lights over the railings in the images seen in the link above). I will route thin fiber optics to these locations, and this should add a little interest. Brass railings, gangaway ladders, and other bits complete the look. I also cut out a few container ports, and may have a container in the process of being removed. 

I may include a shuttle (the wedge-shaped one) undergoing some sort of maintenance.

I realize most of the work won't be seen in the final product, but it's fun to mess around with these things.


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

Hey,

I was just watching star trek 5 and I had a thought, based on the crappy fx of the movie, we now have a use for that shuttle that came with the ERTL kit!

Should be just about the right scale for the new refit, going by the movie!

Mike


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Or did you notice the two ST-V shuttles that came with the kit?


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

Yeah, I know but the shuttle in trek V was waaaay too big for the ship - both in the movie and with the kit - if you wanted to do a diorama from the 'emergency plan B' scene, you could now use the ERTL part!Mike


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Anybody done a comparison of the PL shuttle and the ERTL one?


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Anybody done a comparison of the PL shuttle and the ERTL one?


The ERTL shuttle is bigger.


----------



## omnimodel (Oct 9, 2004)

So big it would not even fit inside the shuttlebay.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

I have both built and painted. The P.L. shuttle is good scale to the model, of course, but lacks detail at that size. Also, as has been mentioned, the engines are simply wrong. I had to cut them from the supports and reattach them. The "landing lights" on the bottom just don't seem right, and I suspect they were molded that way to make them fit on the part.

The ERTL shuttle is very good looking, when painted and detailed. I created a decal set just for the little guy that works very well, including the detail on the engines and all the little yellow RCS packs. Once all that is done, it looks fine.

Bear this in mind, the ERTL shuttle is not to scale with anything we know, so they could make it a nice "bonus" model with the old ST-V kit. The new shuttle is scaled and designed as part of the P.L. kit, obviously, but to make it work it falls somewhat short as a stand alone piece. With some work, of course, it looks very good. I may take my decal set for the ERTL one and resize it for the P.L. model.


----------



## JonD (Apr 18, 2002)

Roguepink said:


> The P.L. shuttle is good scale to the model, of course, but lacks detail at that size. Also, as has been mentioned, the engines are simply wrong. I had to cut them from the supports and reattach them.


You know, I'd assumed the engines were 'upside down' too, but I'm no longer sure that they are. If you actually turn them upside down and attach them - so that the profile at the ends is correct - the 'mounting bars' are still hidden in the body of the shuttle itself and the shuttle still sits nicely flat on the ground. The only thing that differs is that the engines are positioned slightly higher on the fuselage - almost directly under the 'side pods'. And looking at one shuttle done like that and one done the other way, I think it's that way that's correct. I think that one expects there to be a gap between the bottom of the side pod and the top of the engine, which is why it seems that the mounting bars should go the 'upside down' way, giving that slight gap, but at that scale any gap would be un-noticeable.

So I've just simply turned the engines upside down and attached them and they look fine. At least to my eye!


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

justinleighty said:


> The fantail is correct. The doors are incorrect.





TrekFX said:


> After looking closely (ie superimposing profile photos of the kit part and studio model fantails) it sure looks that the doors are a close match (though you are right in saying they are a little squared-off in the top plan view) but the fantail is a little short as well as a little "thin" in the aftmost deck.


And now, after trying to reconcile photos, Gary Kerr's deck plan view and the kit part... I'm still not sure which of the two parts needs correction!

I'm leaning toward the doors again. If Gary's plan view is true, then the fantail part matches pretty well. Further examination of the semicircle where the door's "track" would be measures about 1.81" across and pretty close to 1/2 that fore-aft. Sounds like a logical ratio/form factor.

And in Thomas' corrections list, he indicated to correct the door, not the deck.

My brain hurts!


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

The tooling plans were _not_ rendered solely from Gary's plans. Since his plans were drawn from photos he was supplied with, and given a few dimensions from a model maker friend at ILM (as the claim goes), he rendered his plans with what he had on hand. Fortunately, I had access to some of his work and additional reference photos that he did not have. Several of these photos have _great_ profile views of parts of the ship. 

http://www.thomasmodels.com/refitfix/part29.jpg
Here is the tooling plan for the exterior part shape.

http://www.thomasmodels.com/refitfix/part31.jpg
and for the door. As shown in the correction list, the doors are completely the wrong shape.

Many of the final shapes were not corrected properly to spec, even though I tried and tried to get things into the kit to more closely match the tooling plans. Some things were simply not followed like molding the Workbees and Botanical Garden trees in clear. Other parts were left out altogether, even though they were in the final approved kit plan.
http://www.thomasmodels.com/refitfix/part65.jpg


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

OOOh! Those figures would've been fantastic!


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Thomas, you must have gone through [email protected] keeping the tooling "improvisational artists" on the right highway!

As for the kit, I like what you done with the place!


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

QUESTION - Would the Figures that are included in Any of the AMT/ERTL Gigantics Series Be the Correct Scale? (for the Garden Deck on the Refit that is) 


JOHN/LONFAN


----------



## Heavens Eagle (Jun 30, 2003)

What I wouldn't give for a set of those plans.


----------



## user1127 (Jun 11, 2002)

*What I've noticed*

So far the 1:350 PL Refit is a far better fitting kit than the NX-01. My warp engines practically need no putty-sand-prime routine (just joking). The decals have a problem (at least with the first of three kits I have); The edges shrivel upward, unlike the NX-01 decals; I use the same method of decal application as my two other PL NX-01's.
I presume the same method and materials was used to make the Refit decals as in the NX-01? Anyone have the same problem with the shuttle bay decals?


----------



## Heavens Eagle (Jun 30, 2003)

What are you using on the decals? I use Solvaset on mine and can use it with them right over flat or gloss paint and have no silvering problems. It can be scary as it makes them wrinkle up so you really have to be sure where you want them before applying the solvaset.


----------



## user1127 (Jun 11, 2002)

I use the same stuff (and method). The decals start curling up after I take them out of the water, then transfer them onto the area. Same type and temp of water, decal setting solution, water immersion time, clean fingers, clean tweezers...etc., etc. I hope this won't become an issue when I get to the hull surface decals, i.e.
USS CRINKLY (lol)


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

lonfan said:


> QUESTION - Would the Figures that are included in Any of the AMT/ERTL Gigantics Series Be the Correct Scale? (for the Garden Deck on the Refit that is)
> 
> 
> JOHN/LONFAN


 
Nah, they're waaaay too big.

Mike


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

TrekFX said:


> And now, after trying to reconcile photos, Gary Kerr's deck plan view and the kit part... I'm still not sure which of the two parts needs correction!
> 
> I'm leaning toward the doors again. If Gary's plan view is true, then the fantail part matches pretty well. Further examination of the semicircle where the door's "track" would be measures about 1.81" across and pretty close to 1/2 that fore-aft. Sounds like a logical ratio/form factor.
> 
> ...


One thing I have decided is that I'll just have the doors set in place for display. That way, I can take them out to show off the interior.

It does take away the option of zooming it around the room and scaring the cat, but then, I do have a spare ERTL kit for that. :devil:


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

*Long, long ago, near the start of this thread...*



guartho said:


> So, How do the nacelles work out for those of you that have it already? Do they line up nicely with minimal effort? Do they need any special tricks like the VHS cassette trick with the AMT kit?


So, what IS the "VHS cassette trick"? Does it involve using a VHS cassette as a jig or spacer or some such thing?

Brings back nostalgic memories of my first AMT TOS Enterprise kit. Ah, the classic Nacelle Droop Problem. I finally resorted to the decidedly low-tech method of tying a piece of sewing thread between the aft ends of the nacelles. Well, it worked, more or less.


----------



## podmonger (Apr 30, 2005)

Has anyone tried assembling the nacelle/pylon/sec-hull assembly ... upside-down? It seems to be a more stable arrangement, allowing you to line things up more easily ...?

(that is, for those folks who have ventured that far) 
Steve


----------



## fubarcar (Jan 16, 2005)

podmonger said:


> Has anyone tried assembling the nacelle/pylon/sec-hull assembly ... upside-down? It seems to be a more stable arrangement, allowing you to line things up more easily ...?
> 
> (that is, for those folks who have ventured that far)
> Steve


Hi Steve,
To be honest, I would've thought that assembling upside down was a natural choice of putting this thing together, i.e. glue upper pylon halves to strongback/upper secondary hull section, and leave to set for 24hrs upside down on perhaps an upright VHS cassette or, in my case, a hard drive caddy.

I have actually done this with what I class as my test fit/paint mule/torture victim! (although I could never inflict pain on her knowingly!). Ah well, one kit down, three to go!

One thing though; when I began assembly, I glued the pylon halves together first _*before*_ attaching the fully cured pylons to the upper secondary hull section. The result was very good; no discernable gaps at the pylon roots when the secondary hull sides were glued/snapped/pulled/taped into place, quickly followed by dry fitting the secondary hull bottom with tape to complete the sub-assembly and maintain structural integrity until the sides and top had cured.

I haven't done a full blown alignment check yet, but initial results are mixed. Horizontal alignment appears excellent (to the naked eye). That's as far as I'm prepared to speculate until I obtain a decent Tee-Square.

I should stress that I used Revell Contacta Professional (the stuff that comes with an integrated needle tube applicator), mainly because it's the only thing I could lay my hands on. However, I was very impressed with the results. The ship doesn't creak or groan, despite the omission of the hangar deck, and the glue lays down as a very thin liquid just where you want it. It is however still outgassing, despite the big E being assembled almost 4 weeks ago. Nevertheless, I am happy to report that the model is as strong as a horse with no movement or sagging in evidence.

Best of luck with yours Podmonger,

Steve.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Well I only tapered her for alignment and fix checks and I must say… I am very impressed!
She holds up firm and even with a non glued on saucer, the dish stays in place like a rock 

Regarding the gap as at the pylon/secondary hull connection. Well there are some, but I found when I press the parts together it close up very well. But I think I will go with a bit of a gap, since there is a visible “step” where it meets to the pylon when pressed together, but is all plane with the gap. So I rather have a smooth interface between the pylon and strongback then a step I have to fix . 

Right now I am doing a new base for the lady….. still needs some prototyping, but once I have some results I’ll show you


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

So.. anybody else making a cut-away?
http://home.comcast.net/~thewoozle/models/WorkbenchD2.JPG


----------



## fokkerpilot (Jul 22, 2002)

*Tough Fit?*

Has anyone run into a problem when test fitting the upper secondary hull onto the lower secondary hull with the shuttle bay installed? I did a test fit and found that there was a plastic stud behind the main pin joint of the upper hull section that keeps smacking into the top of the aft shuttle bay. The shuttle bay is in it's correct positiion. Also, I found a heck of alot of tension needed to test fit the aft shuttle bay framework onto the secondary hull. I anyone else having this problem?

Thanks

JAck


----------



## The Trekmodeler (Jul 21, 2005)

user1127 said:


> So far the 1:350 PL Refit is a far better fitting kit than the NX-01. My warp engines practically need no putty-sand-prime routine (just joking). The decals have a problem (at least with the first of three kits I have); The edges shrivel upward, unlike the NX-01 decals; I use the same method of decal application as my two other PL NX-01's.
> I presume the same method and materials was used to make the Refit decals as in the NX-01? Anyone have the same problem with the shuttle bay decals?


here here!!


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

Yes. The decals look nice, but are of poor quality when it comes to application. Kind of surprising, given the very high quality of the kit itself.

That's why I'm waiting for an aftermarket sheet for this kit...


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

cinc2020, did you do the nifty shuttlebay interior with the ladders and safety stripes?

(I've saved the JPEGs, but not sure who deserves the credit)


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

Yeah, that's me. Projects are on a bit of a hold, since I'm moving to Atlanta. I also hired a guy to develop a circuit for the ship, and he's going bonkers over it. He's an electrical engineer, and wants to go all out on it. Since I'm paying him, I don't mind at all. 

I'll be using nano LEDS, lightsheet, fiber optics, and so forth. Nav lights will not flash, because they don't on ships or aircraft. The anticollision lights will flash fast, again as they do on aircraft.

The polished windows allow a good deal of the interior to be seen, which is good.


----------



## podmonger (Apr 30, 2005)

Looking forward to it! Good luck on the move.


----------



## Rogue1 (Jan 3, 2000)

cinc2020 said:


> Nav lights will not flash, because they don't on ships or aircraft. The anticollision lights will flash fast, again as they do on aircraft.


 But don't the Nav lights flash on the Enterprise?


----------



## idman (Apr 11, 2004)

SteveR said:


> cinc2020, did you do the nifty shuttlebay interior with the ladders and safety stripes?
> 
> (I've saved the JPEGs, but not sure who deserves the credit)



Where is the thread for the pics I had them b4 but lost them.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Searching for "cinc2020" lead to this thread:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=117161


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

You are right - the nav lights flash on the Enterprise. I just don't want them to on my kit. I will be building the Enterprise without referring to the movies - My plan is to build it as a working, weathered machine.


----------



## Rogue1 (Jan 3, 2000)

cinc2020 said:


> You are right - the nav lights flash on the Enterprise. I just don't want them to on my kit. I will be building the Enterprise without referring to the movies - My plan is to build it as a working, weathered machine.


 Just wanted to make sure you got what you were paying for. By the sound of it, you are. Good luck and post pics when you're done! :thumbsup:


----------



## ArthurPendragon (Jan 4, 2004)

Attention, all dudes !

DLM is about to release my replacement parts !

Read here:

http://www.starshipmodeler.net/cgi-bin/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=31288


Cheers !


----------



## fokkerpilot (Jul 22, 2002)

Bad link, Art.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

cinc2020 said:


> I'll be using nano LEDS, lightsheet, fiber optics, and so forth. Nav lights will not flash, because they don't on ships or aircraft. The anticollision lights will flash fast, again as they do on aircraft.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Of court on ships and aircraft the Red and Green Nav lights are positioned such that they can only be seen from the front and sides. The white is positioned to be visible from the rear. None of that is done on the enterprise.
> ...


----------



## fokkerpilot (Jul 22, 2002)

cinc2020 said:


> I'll be using nano LEDS, lightsheet, fiber optics, and so forth. Nav lights will not flash, because they don't on ships or aircraft. The anticollision lights will flash fast, again as they do on aircraft.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Ah, but some do. Earlier UAL 727's had "flashing nav lights" and some military aircraft have the same. Irregardless, build the way you feel comfortable with. On some builds I have done, requests were made for yellow navigation lights on the saucer section to keep it from looking to "Christmasy". Whatever they want, I will do.
> ...


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

fokkerpilot said:


> The EA has a strobe on the belly and on the top rear portion of the bridge area. As far as viewable lighting....it probably doesn't make sense while waffeling around the galaxy at light speed. :lol:


LOL...I always figured the nav and anti-collision lights were for close maneuvering (docking, rescues, etc), and not for general use...it wouldn't matter much at warp anyway... :tongue:


----------

