# TOS E 1/350 problem and it's a show stopper!



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

The shuttle bay prevents the secondary hull from being closed up without a substantial 1/8" gap. I'm not the only one with this problem, two others have reported it over at starship modeler. This will require major surgery to fix, and it's an awfully expensive kit to have a problem like this. To say the very least, I'm livid.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Really?

We have had a few finished here. Has anyone else seen this?


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Pretty sure there's a statement in the directions about some parts needing 'slight modifications' to fit correctly. In the case of the shuttle bay if you are lighting it, you definitely need to to do some shaving on the hangar bay insert. I was thinking it otherwise fit... Maybe your part is warped or otherwise distorted and is the cause of your issue?


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

The "slight modification" in this case pretty much means chopping off the back half of the bay and using the closed clamshell. It's far too wide, assembled, to fit. This is the clear parts, not the standard kit parts.

The initial report at starship modeler is what sent me rushing to test fit this. The initial report was that it wouldn't close with the lights installed, but mine won't fit even without the lights. The hangar is too wide, not distorted or warped.


----------



## tardis1916 (Mar 24, 2004)

I had to shave the sides down a great deal as well as the leds a bit to make mine fit.


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

As you can see from these photos, a little shaving wont do it.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

For $130.00, should a person have to "shave" anything to get parts to fit. Shouldn't that have been worked out in development. I mean if it is in the instructions to do this, obviously the problem didn't sneek up on them!


----------



## tardis1916 (Mar 24, 2004)

OK, so you have to get the part inside just right or you get the issue you are having. It takes some fudging to get it right.


----------



## tardis1916 (Mar 24, 2004)

RSN said:


> For $130.00, should a person have to "shave" anything to get parts to fit. Shouldn't that have been worked out in development. I mean if it is in the instructions to do this, obviously the problem didn't sneek up on them!


There isn't a model I haven't had to do a little shaving or adjustments here and there to make parts fit sometimes. NO model is perfect out of the box and you should know that if you've ever built a model in your life.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

asalaw said:


> It's far too wide, assembled, to fit. This is the clear parts, not the standard kit parts.


While I have not attached the lights yet, the clear parts--assembled--fit just fine. I can easily close the secondary hull part with no gaps.

Looking at the photo you provided, it does not appear that the hangar bay is placed into the hull correctly. There's a little curved lip on either side that the half-circle of the floor piece should drop right into. I can see in the photo that the part isn't positioned correctly. It IS a little tricky to get it just right.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

tardis1916 said:


> There isn't a model I haven't had to do a little shaving or adjustments here and there to make parts fit sometimes. NO model is perfect out of the box and you should know that if you've ever built a model in your life.


Been building for over 40 years thank you very much, never had a model that was this off! Considering it is called the "Holy Grail" by modelers and IF that is the fit of the parts this is a BIG problem for the cost of the kit. THAT is what I am saying!! :thumbsup:


----------



## tardis1916 (Mar 24, 2004)

I agree with Fozzie, it looks like its sitting back too far, needs to come towards the edge of the lip. You can use the fantail part to help, once that's in position, there should be almost no gap between the fantail edge and the flight deck :thumbsup:

Don't worry, took me a while to get mine in correctly too.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Below is the clear version of the shuttle bay (still under construction, mind you) fitting snugly in place without any gap. Notice how the curved part of the "floor" fits into each half of the secondary hull.


----------



## tardis1916 (Mar 24, 2004)

RSN said:


> Been building for over 40 years thank you very much, never had a model that was this off! Considering it is called the "Holy Grail" by modelers and IF that is the fit of the parts this is a BIG problem for the cost of the kit. THAT is what I am saying!! :thumbsup:


Appologies for my harsh comment, just thought your earlier comment was a tad out of line (IMO) I've had issues with every kit I've ever gotten. 1/350 NX-01 being the worst.

I've got two 1/200 scale battleships that cost $300 a peice that will need a bit of tweaking to make a couple parts fit. It seems to be the never ending story of us modelers. :freak:


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

I've done some shaving, checked the placement, and the gap is down to about 1/8 inch. Still far too wide.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

asalaw said:


> I've done some shaving, checked the placement, and the gap is down to about 1/8 inch. Still far too wide.



Your hanger is too far inside the hull. Look at Fozzie's for correct placement.


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

It is properly aligned. It only looks too far back because of the angle of the photo. The curvature of the fantail deck has a corresponding curve in the sec hull that marks the proper placement, and I have it seated in there. But there's a gap still. Here's a better view:


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

*trim a little off*

had the same problem at first, then i figured out the shuttle bay was in the wrong place, to far back, still had to sand some but it looks fine now


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Not to seem a total ass, have you TRIED pushing the hanger more...what, aft? Tried fitting the fantail end part to see where the deck hits it? I'll readily accept it COULD be a problem because, ya know, those darn Chinese tooling engineers just love to not do what they're told, but I have the feeling the 'slop' on the parts in this kit is just about zero, so ANY misalignment, just a hair, is going to cascade.

If it was this bad for EVERYONE I'm sure it would have surfaced before now...


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Part of the problem is the material you used for light blocking, it added thickness to the parts. The model has absolutely no wiggle room here without taking off large ampunts of material to make it fit.


----------



## cbear (Aug 15, 2000)

Perhaps this will help:
The the aft-most spline on the bottom of the shuttle deck sits behind and flush against the larger aft spline of the hull (the one with the hole for the LED to pass through). That should give you the proper alignment.
HTH

Chuck


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I have not examined my kit that closely yet, but it seems that the clear parts
are from the same mold, so they should be the exactly the same dimensions.

There have been at least 3 builds so far on here that used the non clear parts with no reported issues.

From the photos you have posted it looks like your hanger deck is not in the same position as Fozzie's, but it can be difficult to see in the photo's.

It would seem that if you can not get it into the same position, then maybe as DTF posits, the problem is in added material.

Good luck, let us know how you solve this.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

(Meh, never mind. Covered by others.)


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Have you tried test fitting with out the rear bulkhead???


----------



## Wattanasiri (Aug 15, 2010)

A few of observations that may help you.

One, this kit is well engineered with some very tight tolerances.

Two, the tabs on the bottoms of the clear plastic sides (Parts 23 and 24) of hangar deck (Part 22) are slightly wider than the grey ones. A small amount of filing may be necessary to make those tabs to fit completely into the notches on each side of the hangar deck floor. On my kit, the clear sides were not 100% flush with the edges of the hangar deck floor until corrected by making the tabs slightly narrower with a file. The sides need to be flush the hangar deck floor edges or the hangar deck assembly becomes wider by the accumulative widths the sides overhang.

Three, on my kit, the tabs of the aft wall of the hangar deck (Part 21) fit perfectly into the hangar deck floor (Part 22). I did not have any problems with the aft tab of each clear plastic side (Parts 23 and 24) fitting in the associated notch in aft wall so the sides were flush with the edges of the aft wall. If the sides are not flush with the edges of the aft wall, the hangar deck assembly becomes a little wider than intended.

Four, the windows for that area of the secondary hull (Parts 129 and 132) must be installed so the plastic panels with the window parts are flush against the inner surfaces of the secondary hull. These windows parts are a little complex on account of the curved shape in that area of the secondary hull. On my kit, the top part of the panel with the single round window had a kink going inboard. I suspect that was caused by removing the parts tree from the mold a little too soon and that section of the part was bent while the plastic was still a little too soft causing the kink. If that part were glued without holding the kinked area flush against the inner surface of the secondary hull, the kink would have protruded against the hangar deck assembly. This in turn would make it very difficult to bring the two halves of the secondary hull together in the hangar deck area.

Good luck.


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

Ductapeforever said:


> Part of the problem is the material you used for light blocking, it added thickness to the parts. The model has absolutely no wiggle room here without taking off large ampunts of material to make it fit.


The material is paint. Applied with an airbrush. Very thin, but opaque.

Wattanasiri, I'll give it a going over with a file in the morning, though I've already filed away a lot of material. Thanks!


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Since the clear parts are just the "regular" parts molded in clear, any fit issue should be universal. I've dry-fit my hangar *without* the lighting kit and it's a perfect fit, with no gaps created in the hull at all. There are areas on the bay that may hang up during install, so I need to wiggle it sometimes but it settles in fine. The little "shelves" that the innermost part of the bay sits on is a little tricky.

I don't have the lighting kit so I can't examine that aspect. If major surgery is the only fix (and we all have our own set-point as to what constitutes "major," no doubt!) I can understand some frustration given the "plug and play" promotion.

To diagnose where issues may be, try drawing a centerline alignment stripe on the top and bottom of the bay assembly, then fit that to just the right, then left, hull halves. If the center line is not aligned with the hull joint, then you can peek down the interior edges and look for interference points.


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

Listening to the worries on here, I dry fit the hangar myself to see if there would be problems. Dry fit went in perfectly, with no gaps at all. The only problem I see is that there is barely any room at all on top of the hangar. You are really going to have to lay the bulbs and wires down tightly to get it in. The observation window middle part has to be cut out completely according to the directions, Paulbos etch kit has a piece too cover that window so painting wont be too hard. Other than the top bulb concerns, the hangar fits just fine.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

A dry test fit will reveal any and all problems (like any kit) prior to aasembly. Like folks here have stated, its a finely tuned kit with little to NO wiggle room for even so much as a layer of paint. Taking all of this into consideration should help guide you on the best approach for your build. If some shaving of parts is necessary then its par for the course. The cost of a kit does not guarantee that some elbow grease and/or modifications wont be needed. So far I've run into the expected amount of curve balls and am still MORE than pleased with the kit. Its just so damned accurate that I could not possibly complain.

ROUND 2, PLEASE READ THIS!

Well, except for the fact that the wiring parts (A & B I think?) that connect to the wall jack only work when they want too, and an email to round 2 has gotten me NO response. Considering that I coughed up the cash for 3 (THREE!) premiere kits I expected a little more in the way of customer service. I did recieve replacement parts for the bent fan posts for the first 2 kits but NOT the third! I cant find the reciept for the third kit OR the lighting kit (light kit was tghird party) but they MUST have a record of my purchases AND I can at least send them the UPC from the lighting kit since that was purchased thru a third party.
Can some one from Round 2 help me? Please! Its almost impossible to tell if something is working when I'm not even sure I'm getting a connection at all times!
Jim
James Webb, Old Bridge NJ
Email: [email protected]
Thanks


----------



## tardis1916 (Mar 24, 2004)

Have you added anything to the inside halves? Other than the window inserts?


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

tardis1916 said:


> Have you added anything to the inside halves? Other than the window inserts?


Nope.

I have been checking one side at a time as suggested above, but so far no luck getting a better fit. I've been carefully sanding material away with 320 grit with no noticeable improvement yet. It's probably just a matter of sanding away enough material, as it was with the warp engine pylons.


----------



## wjplenge (Apr 14, 2011)

Hunch said:


> ... I did recieve replacement parts for the bent fan posts for the first 2 kits but NOT the third! I cant find the reciept for the third kit ...


I'm not with Round 2 but should you need a copy of your receipt go to Autoworldstore.com, click My Account and log in, Under My Orders click on Review orders/track packages, select the time frame (in this instance the last 3 months will do) then click View/Change order next to the appropriate one to view an order summary/receipt.

It's curious though that both the premieres I got still show status as Processing though they show tracking numbers and arrived many weeks ago.

I don't think you need the receipt to request replacement parts for the premiere kits, just the UPC or a copy of it. I may be wrong though I didn't request parts for my bent dome shafts.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I decided to try dry-fitting the shuttlebay pieces in my model to see if I have a similar issue. I made sure to use the clear since those pieces are suspect. The pictures are the result. I did have a bit of a gap but nothing a little putty will not fix. Also, the gap could be closed more if I was able to clamp it better. I present these for your judgement on the issue. As an FYI, I have the inside of the hull coated with metal foil tape as well which reduces some of the room I have inside as well.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Adding one more where I used a flash so you can see the inside better.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Just saw this over on SSM:


Tuvok said:


> I can tell you All Why your haveing problems , i had the Same issues , The Part # 133 in the Secondary Hull extends too Far Inside the Ship to allow the shuttle bay to fit , i had these same fitment issues and once , I cut off the Part that your suppose to insert a LED into , My Fitment issues went Away , Shuttle bay Fit great once i did that , But then im not lighting Mine , Still , i believe you can Cut the "bulb socket" off and still be able to light it.
> Thats my Experience with my Build , i hope it helps you all


----------



## SocrManiac (Jul 19, 2005)

TrekFX said:


> Since the clear parts are just the "regular" parts molded in clear, any fit issue should be universal.


It's not my goal to start a fight, but this is potentially incorrect. While the mold is the same, different materials shrink at different rates. While the difference between a standard polystyrene and a clarified material should be small, depending on the tolerance stack it might cause issues.

Of higher concern to me is the variation we see between kits. We're seeing people reporting sinks where others have well-molded parts. There's the well-publicized issue with the bussard collector posts having warping rendering them unusable. This suggests a few different issues, including startup shots making it into packaging, lack of process control, or general instability in the process. I question how these tools were qualified by the molder and what process controls they're using. As a plastics engineer myself, I know I'd never allow parts as I've seen to leave my factory.


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

SocrManiac said:


> It's not my goal to start a fight, but this is potentially incorrect. While the mold is the same, different materials shrink at different rates. While the difference between a standard polystyrene and a clarified material should be small, depending on the tolerance stack it might cause issues.
> 
> Of higher concern to me is the variation we see between kits. We're seeing people reporting sinks where others have well-molded parts. There's the well-publicized issue with the bussard collector posts having warping rendering them unusable. This suggests a few different issues, including startup shots making it into packaging, lack of process control, or general instability in the process. I question how these tools were qualified by the molder and what process controls they're using. As a plastics engineer myself, I know I'd never allow parts as I've seen to leave my factory.


Thank God. It's good to know I'm not crazy. Thank you for your post.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

SocrManiac said:


> It's not my goal to start a fight, but this is potentially incorrect. While the mold is the same, different materials shrink at different rates. While the difference between a standard polystyrene and a clarified material should be small, depending on the tolerance stack it might cause issues.
> 
> Of higher concern to me is the variation we see between kits. We're seeing people reporting sinks where others have well-molded parts. There's the well-publicized issue with the bussard collector posts having warping rendering them unusable. This suggests a few different issues, including startup shots making it into packaging, lack of process control, or general instability in the process. I question how these tools were qualified by the molder and what process controls they're using. As a plastics engineer myself, I know I'd never allow parts as I've seen to leave my factory.


No fight here! I agree. There's still a lot of kit-to-kit variation. I have a *lot* of warped parts. My saucer pylon is so bad I've screwed it together, but the induced stress of the warpage still pulls the assembly off to one side. Other people have an abundance of sink-holes. With the tolerances needed to fit all that stuff into the aft end, it doesn't take much to start a domino effect ending in significant fit issues.


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

I have built 2 standard kits so far with no problems. On mine the shuttle bay fit with all window incerts and left no gaps at all. True you have to install it just right. The allignment is the key.


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

When I was in college, I worked in a styrene factory that did mold injection. I learned that depending who is working on the machine did affect the final product. Sometimes they would open the door to soon to take out the product or took their time in removing it from the molds. Either way, the operator did have an impact upon the condition of the product in the end.

So... maybe this is an operator issue that has messed up a few kits.

Believe me... working on these machines was hot, wet and smelly work. Really no motivation to pay attention for if the product came out bad... it was later grounded up and re-used in another injection.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

I just test-fit with all the kit parts at the aft shuttlebay area, sans lighting.

No issues at all. No gaps. Parts 133 (the little "strobe" things with the big sockets inside the hull) are actually not captured by anything in there. They keep falling out, so there's no interference from them.

Have you checked the hull mating surfaces against a known-flat surface?


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

When I dry fitted the shuttle bay, that came with the standard kit, it everything fit perfectly. When I got the lighting kit I didn't try the clear shuttle bay thinking it was the same size, until I heard about the fit problem. 

The first dry fit with the clear parts yielded the same gap as stated at the beginning of this thread. I thought that I would try a combination of clear and non-clear parts to eliminate the fit problem. But before I tried the combination I gave the clear parts another try, to my surprise it fit with no gaps along the seams. 

The big test is will the fit be the same with the lights and windows installed?


----------



## tardis1916 (Mar 24, 2004)

I had a slight fitting issue with the lighting parts, I used the regular deck so that seemd to fit better.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

There shouldn't be these warping and fitting issues with a kit that took so long in development, is considered a marvel of engineering of a kit and costs what it does. Period. My 2 cents, anyway.


----------



## Wattanasiri (Aug 15, 2010)

Hmmmm, finding and then creating solutions for these types of problems is part of the enjoyment of building models.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Wattanasiri said:


> Hmmmm, finding and then creating solutions for these types of problems is part of the enjoyment of building models.


Great for you. For me it would be the frustration of forking over dough for a long-awaited, long-engineered product and not have it perform as it should. This is advertised as a skill level 2 kit, remember? I can just imagine the disappointment and angst of a youngster trying to fit toothpaste back into the tube.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I find it more enjoyable to find solutions to problems of my own making.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Proper2 said:


> There shouldn't be these warping and fitting issues with a kit that took so long in development, is considered a marvel of engineering of a kit and costs what it does. Period. My 2 cents, anyway.


Yeah, and I should be six inches taller and gainfully employed. Life sucks, get a helmet. :dude:


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> Yeah, and I should be six inches taller and gainfully employed.


Sorry to hear it. 




Captain April said:


> Life sucks, get a helmet. :dude:


Right. Tell it to the 11-year-old kid who eagerly paid $140 of his allowance for a skill level 2 build only to realize he was no longer in Kansas! Nice. :thumbsup:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Wow! You're quite opinionated for an 11-year-old.

It sounds like you may be new to modeling. I'm glad you've chosen this as a hobby.
One thing you'll find as you gain experience building various kits, is that no matter the price, there will often be inconsistencies in the molding process, resulting in fit issues and even some distortion in the parts.

Part of the enjoyment in making or building models is in resolving these issues. Even listed as a "skill level 2", this kit is very advanced for younger modelers (even for some of us more "seasoned" ones!), and you may require the assistance of an adult with more modeling experience to help in overcoming these challenges.

If your kit contains overly distorted parts that prevent it from fitting together properly, you can request replacement parts directly from Round 2. Contact them for info.

There are plenty of folks here who can help you with your modeling challenges.

Most of all, welcome to the hobby. I hope that you are not discouraged by the challenges of this kit, and hope that you enjoy many decades of model building into the future!


----------



## 67657 (Mar 4, 2010)

Proper2 said:


> Right. Tell it to the 11-year-old kid who eagerly paid $140 of his allowance for a skill level 2 build only to realize he was no longer in Kansas! Nice. :thumbsup:


You're lucky: some of us have to use our "allowance" to pay bills that allow us to conduct the responsibilities of life. If you're going to build models, one lesson to learn is that there's a big difference between "what should be" and _what is_. You're going to have to learn some problem-solving strategies and innovative thinking here, or you're really going to wish you hadn't spent 140 dollars of "allowance" on a model you will get frustrated with and set aside to collect dust while you lament all that money.

By their nature, models have problems with them; yeah, some have more than others and it's frustrating. But this is where you start looking at the parts and seeing what is wrong with them and why they are not fitting. You start seeing if you can do anything to improve the fit, reduce the error or rebuild the part if need be. You test fit and see if maybe you misaligned it, or if sprue or flash is creating a problem, and not just on the part. Sometimes it can happen on the other parts that fit around it, or it could be something no one could have planned for.

As far as saying "there shouldn't be these warping and fitting issues with a kit that took so long in development", we're lucky this kit was even made to start with. For quite a while, folks were wondering if R2 would even do one. Then there was the whole deal about grid lines/ no gridlines (folks, please leave that alone) as well as some shape and size issues if memory serves. R2 could easily have said "maybe later" and done something else, but they cared enough to listen to the fans and customers who greatly desired this kit so they could finally build "The Grey Lady" in 1/350 without having to scratch it up themselves at a cost far above 140 bucks.

I spent years building kit after kit of the 1/537 Enterprise A trying to perfect my skills and get it right, only to find out it was not correct in the first place. When i found that out, I resolved to get good enough to make my own parts, and even though I have 1 1/350 E-A, I have a smoothie 1/537 that I am custom making parts to accurize and make into the ship I always wanted. I don't want an easy build; I _want_ the challenge of doing it myself and learning to overcome the obstacles that the kit put in my way. I went though this with the Airwolf model I built, the X-Wing model, and even custom-designing my own starship,. the Alpha Centauri.

So, I'm truly sorry that you feel the way you do, but when i hear about a 140 dollar model kit, I don't expect perfection in a box that you shake the box and out pops the completed model; I expect to work for it and "sing for my supper".

Rant over.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I find it amusing that so many people pick apart every other model and their precieved inaccuracies and fit problems. They are outraged that in this day and age such a problem would exist on a model that people have been waiting decades for to complete their lives, but when it come to this kit and the legitimate problems that have been found, fellow builders are now villified for pointing out problems that other builders might encounter or that Round 2 needs to address. Very amusing indeed.


----------



## kahn1701 (Jul 11, 2005)

OK
I try to stay out of this stuff...BUT>>>>
I have 5 1/350 TOS enterprises and 2 Deluxe accessory kits.
Two of them are 1701 club specials.
Everyone has some problem.
Some more than others.
Yes I will build them and fix the problem anyway.
All part of the deal HU? Or round two will fix it..
And yes I sent 3 letters on 12-6-2012 for parts replacement.
Nothing yet?????

Here is my only point.
If this model was a new car and you had these problem and eveyone else
has other problem with it.
Would you then go and bye a 2nd one.Or in 5 years bye the same model.
I don't think so......
It not about the perfect kit.
Its about part looking like and fitting together like the manual or box shows..
Its about getting what you pay for...............
Just my two cents..

signed 
The builder of Steve Neils 66 BIG Enterprise.
kahn1701


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

People have a right to expect a product that's not defective. Simple as that.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

kahn1701 said:


> OK
> I try to stay out of this stuff...BUT>>>>
> I have 5 1/350 TOS enterprises and 2 Deluxe accessory kits.
> Two of them are 1701 club specials.
> ...


Steve,It's not a car,it's a model.When a company is as inept as R2 makes a serious production problem,it should be adressed.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Have we solved the problem yet?


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

SteveR said:


> Have we solved the problem yet?


I haven't had time to address it in the last 2 days (work), but I am gradually removing material with 320 grit from various locations. Rest assured I'll post here if/when I resolve the issue.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

fire91bird said:


> People have a right to expect a product that's not defective. Simple as that.


Exactly.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

wraithverge said:


> You're lucky: some of us have to use our "allowance" to pay bills that allow us to conduct the responsibilities of life. If you're going to build models, one lesson to learn is that there's a big difference between "what should be" and _what is_. You're going to have to learn some problem-solving strategies and innovative thinking here, or you're really going to wish you hadn't spent 140 dollars of "allowance" on a model you will get frustrated with and set aside to collect dust while you lament all that money.
> 
> By their nature, models have problems with them; yeah, some have more than others and it's frustrating. But this is where you start looking at the parts and seeing what is wrong with them and why they are not fitting. You start seeing if you can do anything to improve the fit, reduce the error or rebuild the part if need be. You test fit and see if maybe you misaligned it, or if sprue or flash is creating a problem, and not just on the part. Sometimes it can happen on the other parts that fit around it, or it could be something no one could have planned for.
> 
> ...



First of all, I'm not an 11 year old. I used my hard earned USD to pay for this kit. I have 2 kids and a wife and bills. Thankfully I have a job, too. 

The point is that when one purchases a mass-produced kit, not a garage kit mind you, one expects the parts to fit together without having to conduct "problem-solving" surgery. This has nothing to do with desiring "perfection." This kit is advertised as SKILL LEVEL 2! Now, one can rationalize and ignore bad design, engineering and or manufacture of the problem parts of this kit, that are evidently a common occurrence, because one is a seasoned modeller who has the skill, the extra equipment, the time and the money to exact corrective solutions to these problems. Not all of us are in that skill-echelon. Rebuild the part if need be? Seriously? I appreciate that you've paid your dues and are that good. Not all of us are that good. Again, SKILL LEVEL 2.

"We're lucky this kit was even made to start with." Really? That's supposed to excuse ill-fitting and warped parts and slow response to replace them? I understand waiting so long for this kit and wanting it so bad. Somebody else noted that if this was a car, it would be a lemon in accordance with state laws, and you would be demanding your money back. Again, SKILL LEVEL 2.

I don't know how much you personally expect to pay for a kit but for $140 we should all expect parts that fit together as per the instructions, without the requirement of major surgery and alterations. Now, if the challenge of a kit with the issues of this one floats the boat of an experienced builder, that's a different issue. But when that builder dismisses the rest of us who expect reasonable fit quality where it is expected, that's selfish and wrong. It's like saying, "Get as good as me and then you can build this kit, and stop whining about it." Again, SKILL LEVEL 2.

As I said, I'm married with 2 kids, a dog, and a house that comes with a "honey-do" list as long as a 1:350 nacelle. I "sing for my supper" by working full time and spending weekends doing domestic things that require too much of my time. I don't have the time to become a master-model builder. That's where the MR Enterprise comes in. I know that a lot of experienced modellers poo poo the MR Enterprise and look down their noses at it because it was mass-produced and it can be gotten by bypassing their talents. Well, speaking for myself, I am very grateful to MR, because that is the only 1:350 Enterprise I can own and look upon and be awed. It was worth every penny of $1.5K and few R2 kits built will match it; certainly not a personal achievement I could hope for.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Now _this_ thread's getting testy.


----------



## Desert_Modeler (Jun 2, 2010)

What, you didn't read the instruction step that shows how to install the structural ingerity field generators? 

When you apply power for the lights, all the seams seal right up and dissappear....


oh, wait!... those SIFG's will be included on the "snap-tite" version out later this year.....


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Part seams are not defects. Warped parts are.

I understand what you're saying - there is work to assembling a model kit. It just doesn't seem like correcting a quality assurance issue should be part of it.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

fire91bird said:


> Part seams are not defects. Warped parts are.


In that case, the kit has defects.



fire91bird said:


> I understand what you're saying - there is work to assembling a model kit. It just doesn't seem like correcting a quality assurance issue should be part of it.


Yes, assembling is the operative word. Not having to manufacture/redesign parts to make them work.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Show me an eleven year old who has $140 bucks in the first place, let alone that much to blow on a model kit, and I'll show you a kid who'll hightail it to Toys R Us and come out with an armload of toys instead.

This is not a child's model. The snap-together 1/1000 fills that niche quite nicely. This kit is for the big kids.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> Show me an eleven year old who has $140 bucks in the first place, let alone that much to blow on a model kit, and I'll show you a kid who'll hightail it to Toys R Us and come out with an armload of toys instead.
> 
> This is not a child's model. The snap-together 1/1000 fills that niche quite nicely. This kit is for the big kids.


So, kids don't have $140 so it's OK if the kit parts are so screwy that only experienced modellers with specialized tools and materials will have a shot at transforming it into a model—even though R2 states it's a Skill Level 2 (Ages 10+) build. That's awfully "big kid" of you.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

I'm not saying the kit is defective; some number of kits have defective parts. And I don't think anyone is more concerned about that than Round2.

Hopefully, the TOS/E has a very broad appeal, including people who have never built a kit before. If it is a good experience for them, they may stick with it and we'll have more modelers. More modelers = more subjects modeled. Do we really want to give the impression it's up to the modeler to fix defective parts? It is a skill level 2 kit, not a garage kit, not skill level 3, even. At that level, decent results (not necessarily spectacular) should be achievable without modifying the parts.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

fire91bird said:


> Hopefully, the TOS/E has a very broad appeal, including people who have never built a kit before. If it is a good experience for them, they may stick with it and we'll have more modelers. More modelers = more subjects modeled. Do we really want to give the impression it's up to the modeler to fix defective parts? It is a skill level 2 kit, not a garage kit, not skill level 3, even. At that level, decent results (not necessarily spectacular) should be achievable without modifying the parts.



Exactly right! This is not the way to bring people into the hobby. I am not an experienced modeler. But I'm a big TOS fan and I jumped at getting this model to hopefully get the chance to build someday because on many a source previous to the release of this kit I read that this would be ingeniously engineered to be a very simple build. As it is I will probably never undertake to put this thing together, as I could never do it justice. Luckily, I have the MR Enterprise which is pretty awesome, and all I was required to build was a pedestal, and ordered a custom acrylic cover.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

The parts will fit together. So, either the parts in your kit are defective or there's an error in assembly. There's a fix either way.

I suppose there's a third option, that being that parts fit together only if they're defective... :hat:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Personally, I'm beginning to suspect operator error....


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Yes, oprerator error in China! Or more to the point, a lack of quality control. It has to be frustrating for a company to put their reputation on the line with such a kit and then have people 8,000 miles away throwing parts in a box that are not up to standard!!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well, I don't recall hearing back on my suggestion of fitting the fantail cap and shifting the hanger unit until it mates and see what the hull fit situation is then, I don't recall hearing ANY word of moving the hanger around just in case it was mis-fit originally. 

are there any other framing or bulkhead parts in the engineering hull that could be slightly 'off' when installed and create a gap problem later on in assembly?

I'm sorry there's getting to be some 'heat' in this thread, it might result in getting it shut down when further discussion and exploration would be a good idea. I mean, seems to me if this was a flaw and it was this huge, surely ONE of the 'regulars' that are tearing into their kits would have discovered it. It's not like the bizzaro mistake the Chinese Tooling Engineers made with those underside saucer portholes. Problem found, apologized for, solutions developed, and onward. 

Everybody be cool. Let's try to boil out the emotion and work with calm, logic and facts, right?


----------



## Wattanasiri (Aug 15, 2010)

Steve H said:


> Everybody be cool. Let's try to boil out the emotion and work with calm, logic and facts, right?


I second that motion.


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

If a car worked perfectly from the day you bought it and never broke down, you would not auto repair garages. If tires never wore out you would not need tire supply stores. If buildings materials never decayed you would not need contractors. Nothing is made defect free every time it is massed produced. Everything is build with a life exppectancy. Sometimes you get a product that excedes its know lifetime, other times you get a product dosen't make past the first year.

This is how I see it;

This is the first mass produced run of the model. In the beginning there was a 3D computer prototype model to check for problems in the design. The 3D model was re-designed to correct the known defects, redesign and build, ect ... ect ... etc ... until R2 was pleased with fit of the many parts in the cyber world. Moldes were made from those designs. 

A real world prototype was made to see how those afore mentioned parts connected. Changes were made to the moldes to correct the found defects etc ... ect ... ect ... until R2 was satisfided with the final design once again. Now it is time for mass production which brings us to the present day. 

With any hope the first run will sell enough (despite the defects) that a second run will be free of currently known defects. Or at least replacements will be made available for the first run kits still out there. If not be happy with what we get. It is by far the best we have gotten to date. 

Thanks to you at R2 for all for your hard work.


----------



## cbear (Aug 15, 2000)

Like Steve H, I'm concerned that there seems to be some ill feeling brewing. The last thing I want to do is stir the pot, but it is my opinion that there is no kit defect. I have dry fit the hanger bay, including the secondary hull window inserts, and the hull halves fit together without difficulty. The bay assembly must be as far aft as possible to fit. If you follow Steve's hint, it should fall into place.

Chuck


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> Everybody be cool. Let's try to boil out the emotion and work with calm, logic and facts, right?


I have been and always shall be... cool, calm, logical and factual.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

And helpful. Let's try to be helpful.


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

SteveR said:


> And helpful. Let's try to be helpful.


Seconded.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

As Khan himself said "Smiles, everyone! Smiles!" Well, he looked like Khan.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

"Smile and smile... I don't trust men who smile too much."

I've always loved Kor.


----------



## NathanJ72 (Dec 16, 2012)

fire91bird said:


> As Khan himself said "Smiles, everyone! Smiles!" Well, he looked like Khan.


"De plane! De Plane!" Was that Chekov's brother? Must have put one of those critters in his ear.


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Dang you guys...let's talk about the issue, not fight until Griff locks the thread and deletes it!!

:freak:


----------



## 67657 (Mar 4, 2010)

Proper2 said:


> First of all, I'm not an 11 year old. I used my hard earned USD to pay for this kit. I have 2 kids and a wife and bills. Thankfully I have a job, too.
> 
> The point is that when one purchases a mass-produced kit, not a garage kit mind you, one expects the parts to fit together without having to conduct "problem-solving" surgery. This has nothing to do with desiring "perfection." This kit is advertised as SKILL LEVEL 2! Now, one can rationalize and ignore bad design, engineering and or manufacture of the problem parts of this kit, that are evidently a common occurrence, because one is a seasoned modeller who has the skill, the extra equipment, the time and the money to exact corrective solutions to these problems. Not all of us are in that skill-echelon. Rebuild the part if need be? Seriously? I appreciate that you've paid your dues and are that good. Not all of us are that good. Again, SKILL LEVEL 2.
> 
> ...


Well, you mentioned the 11 year old and allowance, so that threw me.

As for the rest, Captain April had it right:

" Life sucks, get a helmet." And with that, I'm out.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

wraithverge said:


> " Life sucks, get a helmet." And with that, I'm out.


Thanks for the tip. Here's mine: "She is yours. You may find that having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting. This is not logical, but it is often true." Have you started building her yet?


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Not wanting to stir up any pot, but I know I haven't had any issues so far. The bay is a very tight squeeze and my dry-fit test did not include the lights yet. I may still find it will be quite difficult to get it all to work, but I enjoy the challenge. I do expect future kits will not have the issues the premiere kit did so I have a lot of faith in R2. I am just happy we got this kit and really look forward to seeing it finished. That will be bittersweet because I have really enjoyed working on the kit so when it is done, it will be a happy moment but also a little sad.


----------



## SFCOM1 (Sep 3, 2002)

Same here as well. I am currently working this week on the Secondary hull, and so far no major problems with the fit. I had to sand down some flash for the connecting parts of the nacelle struts so the hangar deck fits in. (and I plan on not showing that part of the model anyway.) 

I ended up with a very small seam (maybe 1/100th of an inch. Nothing a small amount of bondo putty can not fix :tongue But so far a smooth build. Now the nacelles themselves I always get a seam there (the length of those parts lend to a seam anyway). So more bondo puttly and a lot of sanding should give me the desired finish. 

No good model ever comes out 100% fool proof. Individual "pulls" from the mold may have more or less flash or other inconsisities in them. That makes model building (Especialy at this scale) so much fun. (for me at least). The working around those "quirks" to make a model the one is very satisfied with! :-D


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

cbear said:


> Like Steve H, I'm concerned that there seems to be some ill feeling brewing. The last thing I want to do is stir the pot, but it is my opinion that there is no kit defect. I have dry fit the hanger bay, including the secondary hull window inserts, and the hull halves fit together without difficulty. The bay assembly must be as far aft as possible to fit. If you follow Steve's hint, it should fall into place.
> 
> Chuck


Posts like this are simply not helpful. I have quite a lot of experience building kits, and I know how to see where a part fits.

As I said in an earlier post, the curve of the fantail deck matches a corresponding curved slot in the sec hull, making the part's proper placement quite obvious. Moreover, the same fantail deck has cylindrical cutouts in the underside which fit exactly over the ion pod light cylinders, again making placement obvious. So I'm placing the part correctly. 

However, the clear hangar deck _of my kit _is too wide. I'm actually dremeling off material now, and still can't get the gap to under 1/8".

I now plan to assemble the opaque hangar deck parts and see if they fit better. If not, I'm just going to reconstruct the aft archway out of sheet styrene and install a closed hangar door.

Which, as has been repeated here, I should not have to be doing on a $140 kit (plus $200 for the lighting kit with the defective clear parts). Especially after all that work masking, painting, adding PE parts, and decaling the hangar only to have to display it closed.


----------



## SFCOM1 (Sep 3, 2002)

asalaw said:


> Posts like this are simply not helpful. I have quite a lot of experience building kits, and I know how to see where a part fits.
> 
> As I said in an earlier post, the curve of the fantail deck matches a corresponding curved slot in the sec hull, making the part's proper placement quite obvious. Moreover, the same fantail deck has cylindrical cutouts in the underside which fit exactly over the ion pod light cylinders, again making placement obvious. So I'm placing the part correctly.
> 
> ...


Makes me wonder if it the clear parts kit that is the issue. I did not get that (as I did not desire to build the "Visable Shuttle Bay"). I would also contact Round 2 if possible. 

I feel your pain, I would be even more frustrated as well. I have to sand down the nacelle connection into the Secondary hull as I can not fit the slot in correctly (To Tight, perhaps due to the shuttle bay issue). But it is very correctable for me. 

I was never good with lights, so I opted not to light this model (Perhaps another one in the future). 

Good Luck!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

asalaw said:


> Posts like this are simply not helpful. I have quite a lot of experience building kits, and I know how to see where a part fits.
> 
> As I said in an earlier post, the curve of the fantail deck matches a corresponding curved slot in the sec hull, making the part's proper placement quite obvious. Moreover, the same fantail deck has cylindrical cutouts in the underside which fit exactly over the ion pod light cylinders, again making placement obvious. So I'm placing the part correctly.
> 
> ...



It's hard to believe that the clear hangar is off that much! But I believe you. Anybody else come across this? I don't think I read all the posts here. There must be others... all of the clear hangars must be the same width +/- a hair.


----------



## cbear (Aug 15, 2000)

I"m not sure why you seem to be offended, sir. I, too, have quite a lot of experience building kits and know how to see where a part fits. My kit fits. Period. YMMV. Enjoy the rest of your build.

Chuck


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

I too had to sand off quite a lot of material from the warp pylon struts--they didn't even fit inside the slot in the sec hull originally. But that's a far cry from the hangar deck issue.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

When i dry fit my kit, I had no fit issues at all. It was tight in some cases, but everything fit perfectly. Now I don't have the light kit (yet) so I will go it again with certain parts once I get that, but I don't expect much of a change.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I wish there was a way to take a hangar that fits and compare it to one that doesn't fit and see what the difference is.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Please don't consider this an insult to your modeling skills... I'm just trying to figure out what could be causing such a huge offset. Other than there being a huge defect in the parts, placement would be suspect.

The hangar forward wall/floor hits stops that engage only the corners. It doesn't go in all the way to the nacelle mount structures. Here's a pic. Beyond that, I'm stumped and really feel your frustration. I'd be tearing my hair out. Hell, I *am* tearing my hair out! :wave:


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

TrekFX said:


> Please don't consider this an insult to your modeling skills... I'm just trying to figure out what could be causing such a huge offset. Other than there being a huge defect in the parts, placement would be suspect.
> 
> The hangar forward wall/floor hits stops that engage only the corners. It doesn't go in all the way to the nacelle mount structures. Here's a pic. Beyond that, I'm stumped and really feel your frustration. I'd be tearing my hair out. Hell, I *am* tearing my hair out! :wave:


Yep, I'm placing it correctly. When you line up the fantail deck with the stops, underneath the little ion pod cylinders fit right into the cylindrical cutouts on the deck's underside. Plus the aft curve of the floor fits right into the matching curved recess of the sec hull.

I can't afford to tear my hair out though, as I have too little left.


----------



## John F (May 31, 2001)

asalaw said:


> Yep, I'm placing it correctly. When you line up the fantail deck with the stops, underneath the little ion pod cylinders fit right into the cylindrical cutouts on the deck's underside. Plus the aft curve of the floor fits right into the matching curved recess of the sec hull.
> 
> I can't afford to tear my hair out though, as I have too little left.


 
Could you possibly post some pics of the inside of both the engineering hull halves, with and without the bay in place, I'm wondering if there is some sort of defect in there.

Thanks


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

I'll see if I can get to that tonight.


----------



## tardis1916 (Mar 24, 2004)

John F said:


> Could you possibly post some pics of the inside of both the engineering hull halves, with and without the bay in place, I'm wondering if there is some sort of defect in there.
> 
> Thanks


I'm starting to wonder the same thing. :drunk:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

asalaw said:


> I'll see if I can get to that tonight.


Demanding bunch, aren't we?


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

SteveR said:


> Demanding bunch, aren't we?


LOL -- it depends on what time I get out of work tonight. I don't mind, even though there's nothing to see in there. I had some small globs of epoxy, but I got those dead flush with the window inserts and it didn't help.

The problem seems to be the aft-most part of the hangar is too wide as assembled.

I may invest my limited time tonight in assembling the opaque hangar deck and trying that in there.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The first step might be to not go with what's "obvious", because the actual solution might not be quite so obvious.

Since we're talking a matter of millimeters, just slide it aft a bit, *beyond where it seems like it should go,* and just see what happens.


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

Captain April said:


> The first step might be to not go with what's "obvious", because the actual solution might not be quite so obvious.
> 
> Since we're talking a matter of millimeters, just slide it aft a bit, *beyond where it seems like it should go,* and just see what happens.


I assure you I've tried that. I've also tried moving it forward. The fit gets worse either way, not better.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, you've got something oddball going on there. Is the hull misshapen at all?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

You know what I'm wondering? Is it possible some of the parts for the hanger may have been put together backwards? 

I'm just grasping at straws here, not making any kind of accusations. With clear parts I could see, for example, the back wall mistakenly put on wrong way around. It seems symmetrical so it shouldn't matter but maybe it does matter? 

I dunno. I don't have the kit yet. Just running ideas.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

There's pretty much no way the parts can be put together backwards. I'm going out on a limb and saying that's not the problem.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> There's pretty much no way the parts can be put together backwards. I'm going out on a limb and saying that's not the problem.


Fair enough! I was just looking at that back wall in the various pics and it seemed like it might be a part that could still work flipped around. I'm glad to be wrong.


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

TrekFX said:


> Please don't consider this an insult to your modeling skills... I'm just trying to figure out what could be causing such a huge offset. Other than there being a huge defect in the parts, placement would be suspect.
> 
> The hangar forward wall/floor hits stops that engage only the corners. It doesn't go in all the way to the nacelle mount structures. Here's a pic. Beyond that, I'm stumped and really feel your frustration. I'd be tearing my hair out. Hell, I *am* tearing my hair out! :wave:


It looks like you have the floor of the shuttle bay positioned at the right spot behind the pylon support wall. Does the fan tail end of the floor sit behind the notch at the far right of the same side, just inside of the cowl? Its the "V" shaped ledge on the right where the floor sits.

UPDATE:
I just dryfitted the clear shuttle bay, including the windows, into position. Everything fit with a paper thin gap in the hull. With the notches on the outside of the shuttle bay roof there should be just enough room for the wires for the LEDs. (Light blocking material may be a different story.)


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

I solved the problem. It's the damn floor. 

The tab slots in the floor were too small. This was forcing the walls out slightly, making the hangar too wide and making the fit impossible. I've opened up the tab slots with a knife and filed down the tabs on the walls, refitted the hangar deck, and gotten the gap down to less than 1/16".

Without the floor, the hangar fits just fine with no gap. This holds true for both the clear and the opaque hangars. With the floor, the walls still push out slightly and cause a slight gap. I think now I can just remove a little more material from the outer walls and get it to fit with no gap at all.

Now I'll see what happens when I fit the lights...


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Excellent! :thumbsup:


----------



## teslabe (Oct 20, 2007)

asalaw said:


> I solved the problem. It's the damn floor.
> 
> The tab slots in the floor were too small. This was forcing the walls out slightly, making the hangar too wide and making the fit impossible. I've opened up the tab slots with a knife and filed down the tabs on the walls, refitted the hangar deck, and gotten the gap down to less than 1/16".
> 
> ...


I think you still have something pushing out on the shuttle bay interior, mine fit fine, although I too had the fit problem with the tabs on the floor, just a bit
too narrow but easily open up.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

That's good news! Glad you found the culprit.

It sure doesn't take much to throw it all off. All those tongue-and-groove hull and nacelle joints can harbor the occasional gremlin too.


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

teslabe said:


> I think you still have something pushing out on the shuttle bay interior, mine fit fine, although I too had the fit problem with the tabs on the floor, just a bit
> too harrow but easily open up.


what tabs are you guys referring too? The tabs that the side walls fit into?


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

jaws62666 said:


> what tabs are you guys referring too? The tabs that the side walls fit into?


The hangar walls have tabs on the bottom which fit into slots on the side of the floor. If the tabs are too fat, the walls won't fit properly. The bottom outside edge of the walls should be flush with the edges of the floor.

It's really weird. With the floor and the walls assembled together, I get the gap (though it's much smaller now as I said). But without the floor, or with the floor alone, I get a perfect fit. Odd. But like I said, I think removing some material from the sides ought to do it. :thumbsup:


----------



## teslabe (Oct 20, 2007)

jaws62666 said:


> what tabs are you guys referring too? The tabs that the side walls fit into?


For mine it was these, but as I said it was simple to open them up.


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

teslabe said:


> For mine it was these, but as I said it was simple to open them up.


Yes, exactly.


----------



## teslabe (Oct 20, 2007)

asalaw said:


> It's really weird. With the floor and the walls assembled together, I get the gap (though it's much smaller now as I said). But without the floor, or with the floor alone, I get a perfect fit. Odd. But like I said, I think removing some material from the sides ought to do it. :thumbsup:


The bottom edges of the wall should fit flush to the outside edge of the floor if you have it seated properly and the ceiling's edges should do the same along the top edges of the walls. I can post pictures when I get home if you'd like.


----------



## SFCOM1 (Sep 3, 2002)

TrekFX said:


> That's good news! Glad you found the culprit.
> 
> It sure doesn't take much to throw it all off. All those tongue-and-groove hull and nacelle joints can harbor the occasional gremlin too.


Yep. Just finished my Nacelles last night and they now fit perfectly and flush. (so much that it took a couple of seconds to detach them so I could paint them ).


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

teslabe said:


> The bottom edges of the wall should fit flush to the outside edge of the floor if you have it seated properly and the ceiling's edges should do the same along the top edges of the walls. I can post pictures when I get home if you'd like.


Cool, that would be great. 

I think I'll file/shave some more away from the tabs and tab slots as well--that should help the walls sit flush to the edges of the floor.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Ya know...

Had I not had a Senior Moment, I would have remembered that I did a lot of fitting for the walls, floor, and ceiling in pursuit of a tight, clean interior. I didn't even consider the higher-assembly aspect. Doh.

Irony is I'm thinking about keeping a closed bay now to ease lighting all the aft-end tidbits.


----------



## teslabe (Oct 20, 2007)

TrekFX said:


> Ya know...
> 
> Had I not had a Senior Moment, I would have remembered that I did a lot of fitting for the walls, floor, and ceiling in pursuit of a tight, clean interior. I didn't even consider the higher-assembly aspect. Doh.
> 
> Irony is I'm thinking about keeping a closed bay now to ease lighting all the aft-end tidbits.


It is a bit tricky getting the shuttle bay together and extra time has to be taken to remove all flash, no matter how minor it looks and to test fit before any glue get put on.


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

teslabe said:


> It is a bit tricky getting the shuttle bay together and extra time has to be taken to remove all flash, no matter how minor it looks and to test fit before any glue get put on.


i would say , with as tight a fit as it is, that the hangar wont even need to be glued in. i will just glue the fantail to the back of the bay to keep it in.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Sounds like a plan...


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

For those who had problems with the hangar. here is a link to mine built and dry fitted in the hull

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?p=4417233#post4417233


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Since the problem has been identified and solved, would it be possible to add "fixed" or "solved" to the thread title? It could definitely save people some time digging through the many pages leading up to the ultimate solution.

Just a thought.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> Since the problem has been identified and solved, would it be possible to add "fixed" or "solved" to the thread title? It could definitely save people some time digging through the many pages leading up to the ultimate solution.
> 
> Just a thought.


I agree, but I think it would be a good idea if one of the intensely skilled people here, who can draw and stuff, to actually do a "if this, make sure that" illo.

along the lines of "when building the hanger deck parts, make COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY SURE that (parts) are flush with (part) or you may not be able to close the hull. Shaving or widening (area of part) may be required"

Yeah, I know, not 'our' job, but I think it would save some folks some grief and who knows, maybe it would be a 'blow in' sheet added to kits or posted over at R2's site or something.


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

Paulbo said:


> Since the problem has been identified and solved, would it be possible to add "fixed" or "solved" to the thread title? It could definitely save people some time digging through the many pages leading up to the ultimate solution.
> 
> Just a thought.


I had that thought this morning, but couldn't figure out how to edit the thread title. Just accessing the post editor doesn't let me access the thread title. I agree, and I too would like to see a pro do an illustration of it.

FYI, I glued the opaque hangar to the hangar floor tonight (being very careful to get the walls flush with the outside edge of the floor), and started sanding it down. I'll probably have it fitting properly sometime tomorrow. :thumbsup:


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

In the meanwhile, I think the verbal descriptions make it pretty clear. Get those tabs fully seated into their slots and ensure flush edges.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I'm glad someone was actually able to identify a fix. This explains why I didn't have any issues; everything was flush when I dry-fitted it. Hopefully this will calm those who were pretty upset.


----------

