Clever Santos and his Star Trek kits...

[THE DC]

This second image shows how the hulls do not join well. It looks like, if the glue tabs drop under this joining flap, then the hulls would be flush; they are not. Putting the flap under the joint base raises it to create an awkward over-flap. If the joining upper hull flap is dropped below the lower hull "prongs", which is the way is is supped to fit per the images, then theres an un-used glue tab left, and even if this is cut off and unused, a lot of white space left evident around the navigational deflector (the blue-gold thing that glows in the show).

 

[THE DC]

The last pic illustrates the problem. It shows how, if the tab is under the "fork", it doesn't join well; if above the fork, not creates a gap. Either way the fit is
problematic.

I have attached second-same pic with labeling.

Any guess how this is supposed to fit?


I have largely finished the rough build of the Clever kit, but have been stopped at this juncture for the StarFreak Warpgondeln kit, by this fit problem

 

[THE DC]

Here's a side view to illustrate the fit problem...

 

[Revell-Fan]

I think there was an intersection on the CG model which was overlooked or the pointy edge of the saucer piece is in fact a double face from the lower hull part. I would glue the parts in place where they definitely fit. Then cut off the problematic area and make a new piece which closes the gap and joins the parts perfectly.

 

[THE DC]

I think there was an intersection on the CG model which was overlooked or the pointy edge of the saucer piece is in fact a double face from the lower hull part. I would glue the parts in place where they definitely fit. Then cut off the problematic area and make a new piece which closes the gap and joins the parts perfectly.

That is a good observation. It might have been the way to go.

unfortunately I saw this message too late!

I tried forcing the fit in alignment with the pieces detail. It came together but warped a bit, and the "prongs don't create the shape that should be expected. There is no inner part to avoid white-spacing.



I have finished the test build on the Warpgondeln kit. It was interesting, even if a bit frustrating. My plan to use this thread to document the Frankel-building of the two kits into one may not play out as I anticipated.

I completed the first builds, roughly, just to figure out how the Clever and Warpgondeln kits fit together. I have no instructions to either. What I found is that both are very different, even if of the same Nova Class Equinox. Both kits have benefits and problems.

What I may do is use the rest of this thread to show the parts, describe the positive and benefits of each, and compare, with build observations. If I wait until I build the kit, this may become a necrothread!!!!

What I learned from these first builds is that there would now have to be a second rough build to use what I learned from the first rough-builds, to accomplish a more quality construction. After that second build, then I might be able to accomplish a third, more quality, final build.

That may take a while.

So maybe I'll share some thoughts about what I learned and compare the attributes of the kits?


And maybe, after the experience of these tow rough-builds are passed, I may return, if I go to build a final quality version!

 

[Revell-Fan]

I'm looking forward to seeing it!

 

[spaceagent-9]

I think it's all about learning and refining my skills, and sometimes it's a bit disappointing when things don't turn out right, but that happens with everything, and when something new turns out right or you finally nail that sucker, it makes it all worthwhile.

 

[THE DC]

You are correct. There were definite skill deficiencies on my part, but I have to say, having directions would make the process much more effective. In the next entries, I'll share the rough builds, but I had to do them just to get a sense of how the parts fit. Had I directions, that would have been a lot easier, and perhaps, an unnecessary step.

DWHALE makes excellent kits and even more detailed directions. Thales makes highly detailed work of art; with clear directions. Ron Caudillo offers exceptional kits...with directions. Bill Perry's directions make kits not only possible, but better!

When a kit has complicated curves and fit-specifics, the builder benefits from the author's understanding of the design that they are supplying.

I appreciate any kits, and have even offered authors to develop instruction sheets for them, as I wish these kits to be built, enjoyed, and shared.

As I work to improve my skill, I can only hope that kit designers will either supply instructions, build threads, or work with those willing, to help them build instruction sheets.

This would make the kit, and the very field of craft, more available to everyone.

 

[THE DC]

The Nova class Equinox history



Okay; so some background upon the target of these two models, before discussing the two kits in more detail.



The Nova class vessel could have had on its dedication plaque "The little ship that could..." or even "A design before it’s time!"



The background of the fictional ship came from the third season of Deep Space Nine. During the beginning of that season, there was a plan to give the writers more freedom for storylines by adding a small starship. The use of then runabouts was found to have limitations; the short-ranged craft were too small to compete with many of the standard models used in the series, and the station rotation wasn’t permitting boldly going, as much as it resulted in bodily waiting…



The history of the planning is fascinating (there were unresolved arguments over how big the ship would be permitted to be that even impacted seasons of unresolved certainty for years after!). The debates extended to even the changing of the ship’s name from Valiant to Defiant; because the producers were concerned with the audience getting confused, if two parallel-running Trek series both had a ship with the letter "V" (Voyager was running at the same time). Cooperation between Star Trek production teams has been notoriously strained and the Defiant found itself at the behest of competing interests of the Voyager staff and the Next Gen movie staff.



Rick Sternbach, who had a long pedigree with Star Trek, by that point of the history, designed a ship more in line with traditional Star Trek in-universe lore. The vessel had similar lines of Starfleet vessels, with extended warp nacelles, atop spanning pylons. The "Pathfinder Project" was the dubbed response by Starfleet to counter the Borg threat; designing small, adaptable, extremely fast vessels to counter any invading Borg cubes. These vessels would have s strong torpedo spreads, a wide range of phaser strips (that permitted frequency changes in the power [eh? Multi-frequency particle-phased energy?]). Sternbach introduced the design as a combat vessel with several interesting characteristics; two, upswept nacelles (similar to the Sovereign class design), what would later be used as a Defiant, inset-bridge, eight deflector crystals (signifying overlapping shielding systems; later used on the Defiant), and a series of heavy photon torpedo bays, set up in the sides and in the notching the front, arrow-shaped hull.



The design was rejected.



The producers decided to go with a more radical design with enclosed nacelles and a non-traditional formation (the issues of nacelle radiation proximity to the operational-hull [never explained], nor the ability of the nacelles too stabilize a warp field by having a line-of-site magnetomic flux chillers). Sternbach liked his design and shelved it for potential future use. He’d put a lot of thought and care in it and wanted to find a home for it in Star Trek canon.



The possibility resolved with the publication of the Star Trek Next generation Technical Manual. The semi-canon book [don’t ask me to clarify semi-canon in the age of Bad Robot…] explored the Borg response and Sternbach provided it, with some help from Dough Drexler, as a planned response-ship.



Years later, Star Trek Voyager was facing a season five cliff-hanger tale, that would involve a new ship, also stranded out in the Delta Quadrant, with a crew that had committed wrongs to save themselves. Season finales often involved cliff-hangers and an opportunity to pull out all the stops to draw in viewer, not only for the cliff-hanger, but for the next season.



A science ship, the Equinox, was scripted as the sister ship that Voyager was planned to confront. Sternbach pulled out his old, shelved, Pathfinder Defiant plans [by the way, Pathfinder, as a term, was later used in Voyager too, for a different storyline]. His logic was that the Starfleet admirals may have passed over the design for the Defiant-Pathfinder Project, but would use the ship as a replacement for the ageing Oberth class science ships [given the onscreen performance of the Oberth, this seems pretty reasonable…].



As a science ship, the design didn't need to be as weaponised as the original use would justify. Modifications to the plans were made; the bridge was made more traditional, the multiple deflector crystals dropped, the multi-torpedo bays swapped out for sensor pallets (two single torpedo bays were placed at the very bow of the design), and the engine pylons raised a bit. The vessel didn't have an impulse engine set-up in the original plans; this was fixed by adding one near the aft of the forward-upper-hull section. The rather unusual, multi-deck, Muti-door-access shuttle bay was retained (more about this, when I discuss the model kits, as it become a significant detail to the designs). The forward-notch pair of torpedo tubes were removed and a secondary deflector was added in that place.



The result was a very popular design, surprising, given how little screen time that it enjoyed. The Nova Class Equinox became a soon-sought paper model...


[next; the kits]

 

[THE DC]

The Kits



There was a strong, positive response from fandom over the appearance of the Equinox, during the end of season 5 and beginning of season 6 two-part episode. The battle between the Equinox and the Voyager was positively received as one of the better fx moments of that series. The ship's strong lines and well-thought out design even brought about suggestions that the vessel was preferred to the series star-vessel, the Intrepid class Voyager.



It didn't take long for modellers to clamour for a paper model version for home-build. Three kit designs were eventually developed [if there are more, please message me and I'll correct my assertion].



The first kit was from JayBats, who designed a simple paper toy, made more for youth enjoyment than for serious model building. A nice kit of three pages, it uses a box-fold technique that makes for sturdy kits, but makes detail building more challenging. That kit is not reviewed here. I do recommend checking out his kits, however, as other kits were more detailed, using the box-build design process. His Klingon Raptor and Delta-Warp ship are very worth exploring.



A second set of kits was designed by the skilled and prolific designer, Clever Santoro Lopez, often found in net searches as Clever Santos. Clever created an Equinox kit and a second, modified version, the Rhode Island, Nova class kit, which portrays the future version of the Nova class, as it was depicted in a different Voyager episode. Clever was also responsible for several other interesting subjects for build; the Enterprise-D, the Enterprise-C, the Excelsior, the Enterprise-B, the Klingon Bird of Prey, and even the NX ships (for the short-run Enterprise series).



The first of the Clever, Nova class kits, the Equinox, portrayed the ship found in the Voyager cliff-hanger (season 5-6) episode that generated so much initial interest. The kit was 10 pages long and with very colourful graphics. I was able to find the version 1, though I have seen a version 3 referenced somewhere. I haven't found it, or even determined whether this uprated version even exists.



Another Nova class kit was provided by a designer, Warpgondeln, from the StarFreak's website, the PSF kits. The kit was 4 pages long. I had the rev.1 version for these experiments.



This Starfreak’s site also featured a very nice Andorian battleship, created a a box-design build, which can be very robust, as each shape creates its own skeletal frame [check it out]. The Andorian ship is worth your attention.



Both kits appear below.



Before reviewing the individual kit values and build, I'd like to explore the kits as they are presented...

 

[THE DC]

The Clever Kit



Clever Santos Equinox kit is very attractive and detailed. It looks like a professional package [see pic 1]. Even if you do not ever build this kit, the version is worth downloading and examining, as will be explained below. Clever did a very nice job of packaging the kit and making it interesting.

It contains glue tabs for most of its parts, and has very slight fold-lines for shaping the hull. The fold lines are so carefully included that they can "disappear" after the build, when examining the finished product.

The first page is a very colourful cut-away of the Equinox, which is worth examining. The cut-way will provide discussion later on, in the building of the kit, regarding the unusual shuttlebay set up. A second page provides contact and legal detail regarding copyright [see pic 2].



The next section consists of 5 pages of parts. Four pages are coloured, detailed parts, the last a selection of framing pieces, with a diagram of the construction of the skeleton [see pic 3]. The diagram is not very clear, when it comes to constructing the frame. This is a shame and a lost opportunity. The diagram illustrates two flat pieces, assembled in parallel, with several half-sphere connection the pieces, all to provide structural framing. A good idea, in theory, was not clarified with adequate instructions and adequate pieces. The two flat pieces do not appear to match the size of length of the diagram’s elongated frames bases, and the 7 half-spheres do not seem to match the size and placement for the provided diagram. Framing this model is important, as will be explained in later sections, and the diagram, were it to include written description, or at least numbered parts with placement indication, would have made the kit more valuable to a builder who didn't have the pdo to explore and figure out.



The last section includes three pages of colourful diagrams of the ship [see pic 4]. These are worth the kit alone. They not only detail the exterior, but they also share in-universe detail of the components. The three pages are not without error, however. The impulse engines, on the multi-design ( 3-view) page, are labeled the Aft-Ventral bay [the upper ventral bay doors are actually the small doors below the inaccurately, designated part], the hull-cargo access panels are mislabeled impulse engines, the ventral phaser strip is mislabeled a tractor beam emitter, the magnatomic flux-chiller is mislabeled a warp field grill [slang?], and the designation of a primary/secondary hull is made, when this ship does not separated (so there's really only one hull). That last point is picky, but the labelling would more accurately indicate upper/forward hull and lower/aft hull, since there is no separation of the sections, even for any emergency separation [at least as described by Sternbach].



The kit does not have instructions; a real detriment to the utility of the product. Some of the fitting, curving of the paper, and placement of pieces is specific and would benefit from guidance, by the author who knows how the two-dimensional parts fit best for the final three dimensional goal.



Still, the kit is colourful, appears detailed, and is attractive. Its a very promising kit, leading to a test build to seek potential goals of garnering this attractive little eight-deck ship.



My critique of the kit is not an attempt to offend the author, as the start is promising and the kit attractive. I was trying to build it to provide a build thread and maybe instructions. The need for build-instructions is important for early builders, as well and more advanced builders, who like building but are less enamoured by working puzzles. My respect to Clever Santos and I am willing to work with him to develop instructions, as I believe this kit has high potential.

 

[THE DC]

The PSF Kit



Warpgondeln, from the StarFreak's website, provided the PSF kit. It has high potential. The graphics are very clear, the size is slightly larger than the Clever kit, and the hull details have important features lacking in the Clever kit. There are several more accurate details in this kit than in the Clever kit, to be reviewed in a comparison in a coming thread-section. This makes comparing them a bit of a challenge. Let's look at this kit, as it stands alone, first.


The kit contains four pages of colourful parts. It contains glue tabs for those who like them. There are no fold lines, but in a few places, the graphs are carefully set to subtly indicate fold placements, making no remaining fold-lines to distract from the final build.

This is a great idea. Unfortunately, there are no instructions, so I didn't discover these until well into the build. A bit of instruction could have led to a smoother use of this very smart approach to avoiding distracting fold-lines.


There is very little framing. One piece, probably falls between the upper-lower hull portions, is provided, but nothing for the upper or lower hull to support the shape of either hull. This lack of frame is problematic as the ship pieces come together.

Finally, there are no instructions. The pieces are very cleverly designed to piece together well, but the puzzle-build approach needed, when no instructions were provided, mean that the first build is likely a rough-pass. There is much learning along the way. That detracts from the enjoyment of building the kit.

This is a shame because the placement of pieces is very clever and effective at building the shape, in several different places on this model. A set of instructions would have improved this kit dramatically.



Again, my critiques are for the benefit of potential builders, not to insult Warpgondeln or StarFreaks. I really grew to appreciate the potential of this kit. The build would have been far less frustrating or difficult with little up-front guidance. I am again open to collaborating with the authors in creating an instruction sheet for this kit. I don’t mind giving back, if the authors will contact me. I will work with them to make these kits accessible and more enjoyable.



Next, I’ll compare the kits for detail in the print…

 

[THE DC]

Okay, for those thinking about building these, here's the beginning of comparisons, to help you choose which to build, whether to combine the kits, or maybe offer me advice on how to make these work?

I am going to share some rough builds; very bad builds, that were completed just to figure out how the parts connected and formed, without expectation of the result being a good build. I never intended to share these builds, but I recognise how the thread works better if I share my dirty laundry in order to illustrate fit issues and kit limitations.

When I don't have directions, I always start with a rough-build, to both moderate my expectations, and to allow me to experiment and risk a bit, which I wouldn't do if I were concerned about the finished product. The rough build is the learning journey to better prepare for the main trek.

These rough builds can make great scenic wrecks, after a little damage work on them later, when I complete the quality build!!!!

The rough builds really help in the planning and reference when I complete follow-up builds. The lessons form rough-builds guide me in planning a more effective quality-build.



Below is a pic of the two rough builds. I shared this, despite the poor workmanship, because I was requested, and I hope that it will encourage critique and discussion. I didn't do any edging, adjusted colouring, or other effort. I wanted to see how well the kit shaped and if I needed to build the quality build in a certain way, and whether framing or build adjustments would be necessary. I find the practice informative.



I also wanted to show how different the two kits were in final size (PSF on the left, Clever build on the right). I hope that the comparison helps guide your decision on which to build.

Personally, the PSF kit was a nicer size for me. If I had Spaceagent's skill, the larger size would also promote better lighting potential.



Were anyone to make an effort to Frankenstein the two kits, or to borrow parts back and forth for a final build, a consistent sizing would have to be determined before printing out the sheets, and one, or both, adjusted for the parts to be sizeable to the other kit.

 

[THE DC]

Comparing the two kits, after the rough builds, suggests a real need for internal framing. In both kits, the shape distorts as the glue cures and pieces start drying and tugging against each other.

The PSF kit has one framing piece, shown in pic 2. There are no directions, but I think it is intended to have been a connector framing piece between the upper and lower hulls; a joining plate., That seemed to have been the best fit for this framing piece. The PSF kit needed more framing, especially in the upper/forward hull. The arrow-head hull part suffers from sag and bulging, which framing would counter. Framing for the lower, engineering hull would have helped in construction, as well as in maintain g the shape. The folding of the PSF hull pieces can get a bit hairy without the guiding frame. The shaping of the pieces to make this hull is genius! Its just a challenge to fold them into cooperative shapes.

The Clever kit included a full page of framing parts [see pic 1]. There is a diagram of what configuration that these frames are supposed to take (see lower page, in red/gray diagram). Unfortunately the diagram is not helpful enough. More description-explanation was needed. It took a bit of metering (and a few choice words) to get the frame together, and some parts just don't permit what is represented in the diagram. The parts do not configure to the pieces available, leading me to wonder whether the frame page was intended to be reprinted several times to create the shape, from multiple or spliced parts? I just don't really know. A more skilled builder than I was needed to figure this out. The horizontal frames are not the size shown in the diagram, with at least one warped-rectangle too short to create the diagramed effect. Which is the upper and which is the lower is unclear. The semi-circular framing pieces also are not clearly delineated. The large semi-circle somehow goes into the upper/command hull, and the smallest probable fits into the stern of the lower hull, but the rest of the pieces are not delineated as to placement. Somehow, the rectangular section at the bottom (whichever that is) goes through a couple of semi-circles?

Not sure. I never figured it all out. Every configuration I tried was incompatible with the hull built later.



Communication is an essential aspect of human relations. An author, in a text, must use language to convey ideas. Mastery of language and descriptive capacity are the foundation of the written work.

Authors of paper model kits would further the value of their efforts by providing such descriptive guidance. I was looking over a few kits that Ninjatoes and Paper Aviation provided; each had diagrams or text instructions. These help.

In any case, more framing than either kit provides is needed for a quality build. Clever's kit does have more framing than the PSF; you just have to mind-wrestle what he planned with those shapes.

Whichever kit is chosen, consider as you test fit pieces, how to add more supportive framing than either kit provides; both to guide your build and to support the shape and the pieces tug against each other.

 

[THE DC]

Lets compare the upper hull portions of both kits. To do this, we'll need to examine my rough builds; and they are both very rough here!

The first thing to note is that the PSF kit [pic 1} has a flat print of the bridge section, relying upon graphics to convey dimension. I really think that this could be improved with a tad bit of scratch build, however (as was my original intention). Pic 2 shows Clever's kit's more multiple method, which encourages surface detail. Unfortunately, the lack of instruction made creating these shapes a bit challenging, and then the kit sagged and stretched during the drying, splitting apart the effort at the shaping of the bridge. I learned a need to spend a bit more time and create some supportive framing to avoid this effect. I have to question whether scratch-building these parts, with the PSF kit might be more easy to do and more stable.

Still exploring.

The next pics relate other detail but there's not enough room here. I'll have to explain in the next frame, to upload the pics....

 

[THE DC]

AN important note for detail oriented Trekkers. I had to play with these images to get them to load!!!


The Clever model has a serious error in the printing that the PSF model got right. Look at the Clever model, pic 1, where the red lines suggest the sensor pallet along the front of the command hull. This is not where it should be (see online images of the digital model). The PSF kit gets it right, as seen in pic 2, where the upper sensor-band is placed atop the command hull.

Another advantage of the PSF model is the window accuracy. The Voyager and Nova models had inset windows along the upper/command hull. If you look at the Clever kit again [pic 1], you may note several blank places next to the slit-windows. This blank space was supposed to be the place where inset windows had been placed in the Digi-model.

In pic 2, the PSF kit has several green boxes that draw attention to the missing inset windows; those missing from the Clever kit. This is a big detail, making the PSF kit a bit more attractive to a detail-builder. The printing of the inset-windows is well done, forcing perspective of the detail, and if a builder were so-motivated, they could provide a builder with the means to alter the printed windows into the basis for 3D scratch-builds. This is what I planned, if I could get the rest of the build figured out!

The last note on this section involves the hull portion just behind the bridge. There is a pair of sensor pallets flanked by two lifeboats on either side, on both kits. The big difference is that the section is a single flat, painted section on the PSF version, where the Clever kit has a separate part that raises that sensor-lifeboat section. I like the idea of raising this, but the Clever version's appears unfinished, as it doesn't have connective trim along the edges, resulting in an awkward fit. The PSF version, though its ink-dependent, makes for a better finish. The Clever version just doesn't provide a clean fit for this piece.

One last, but worth noting difference between these kits, is that the PSF uses colouring effectively to suggest the beacon lights from the command section of the hill to the name below. It's a nice detail.

 

[THE DC]

One last bit of difference to share with you tonight...

Along the edges of the upper hull, the Digi-model had inset sensor pallets that were composed of dark areas with tiny accent lights of several colours.

The PSF model represents these well (compare PSF pic 1 with Clever pic 2).

And in front of the señor pallet, there was an opening for two torpedo launchers. The launcher is detailed on the PSF kit, but is a gray shape, without detail, on the Clever portion.

In these rounds, the PSF kit seems a better choice.

But that's not the whole story...

[-in TV, that's called a tease! ;-) -]

 

[THE DC]

I am under severe time crunches tonight, but I'll try to add a quick chapter.

I hope that this material is along what was requested and messaged. I know that organizing the observation for these chapters is helping me re-examine my build experiences!

One thing I should have noted earlier about the two kits, which troubled my dreams, after last night's entry, was that I didn't address white space concerns. I thought about how often that the members here have discussed the value of economical kits, as relative to print area and number of pages needed. You simply want the parts tightly packed into the page to save paper costs, and to not waste paper.

Both authors were pretty responsible regarding not creating wasted paper due to sloppy parts pages. You'll do alright with either. But if I had to make a comparison, the PSF kit is more economically organized for maximum page-space economy.

The Clever Santos kit uses 5 pages even though the final build is a lot smaller in size; one of those 5 pages was reserved for all frame-forming. The PSF kit, even though its much larger when constructed than the Clever version, uses only 4 pages. The difference is that the PSF kit intertwines the parts thoughtfully, decreasing the white space, and getting as much on the page as possible. The PSF doesn't have the amount of framing that the Clever kit provides (only one piece), but the pieces are packed together compactly. The larger build uses less pages, and even if the same framing had been provided, it would still consist of the same number of yardstick pages as the Santos version.

And the PSF kit seems to have a few less number of parts (41 parts) than the Clever kit (62 parts). A big difference between the the two kits is the design strategy. The Clever kit is very straightforward in the shaping of the kit, where the PSF kit looks less intuitive, but honestly, the design was very cleverly done, making for very effective rounded shapes.

 

[zathros]

If you cut off all those tabs, and started using strips instead, you would be able to get the radii on some of the parts that are not possible with a big flat tab preventing it. Also, the strips, when dry, make a perimeter frame along the edge of the strips. boxes can then be made to form an internal support structure, with Popsicale sticks coming off the boxes to connect the box to wherever support is needed. The Equinox, and those episodes were among my favorite. The tabs also prevent paper from being on the same plane, this slight offset allows for acrued intolerange, and starts adding up quick. Some models just don't really go together well at all. For the effort put in, it's best to refine the technique. For the same time put in, you get a fine model, not one you want to see how it flies, and throw it across the room (have we all done that?)

 

[THE DC]

Yea, Zathros, I usually do cut them off and use strips, both to join and to provide framing. I agree with your process completely. Thanks for the support.

In this case, I was doing two rough builds, trying to replicate the author's intent, so I used the tabs to see how the author planned the kit to assemble (remember, I was experimenting since I didn't have directions to either). The first rule in any scientific experiment is replication before modification! I wanted to figure out from the rough build how, and even whether, they would go together, and I didn't want to stray from the suggested process; trying it the author's way.

Your suggestion will be a help if I push myself to try a second, more purposeful build. Spaceagent also sent some creative forming suggestions (thank you!) for if I try again with a quality-build.Since I planned to open some of the windows, the strips that you suggest would be even more important for supportive framing that could fit between the open areas.

I have found, when I do use tabs, that it helps to "indent" them, after cutting them from the page, an indention-space the measure of the paper, creating the "shelving" effect that plastic models provide with those plastic tabs. This is especially helpful when forming a sphere (like on a Dadelus class) as sphere can easily miss-shape during a forming effort. That's a bit tricky, but it helps with a flush build.

Again, in this case I was test-building a rough experiment. I did learn how and where to bend and curve from this first effort, which I didn't know before I tried. It was a bit of puzzle building and trial and error just to complete the rough-build! I try not to focus much on the quality of appearance during the rough build, as I am intending to try to figure out what the author was planning with the pieces that he printed.

I am not sure that these kits can be salvaged, but I figure that possibility is most possible by combining them. As I continue comparing the two, this assertion might be more clear, as there are benefits and weakness's of each. Some positive of one might help modify the weakness of the other.


I'll ask your advise one I get this analysis complete.



I hope it's helpful to you prospective builders. Like you, Zathros, I did like the design of this ship!!!