spaceman Posted April 30, 2018 Author Share Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) Hi Pete, yep, it's starting to get scary and spoil all the fun with tiny details, but maybe that's the curse of the many grooves. On the one hand the cleaning of this Intertank with its many fine grooves obviously is an extremely hard nut and very difficult to handle. But on the other hand it also seems to be a problem of the post-treatment and cleaning of prints by Shapeways itself, because the third IT seems have been treated more thoroughly and consequently to be cleaner than this first IT. Other guys have also noticed and complained about this different quality of the post-treatment, as I've read in several forums. Maybe Shapeways would have to let him in the oven for longer to melt out the residual wax completely. In this context, I remember a passage in Shapeways Magazine (1. Model Prep) with the following interesting tip, which could be a broad hint for all users. **TIP** If you notice an excess amount of residual support material or details are distorted, this may call for a reprint. Please send an image and order number to service@shapeways.com. And then the following thing does not go out of my mind. This is the BANDELIN video about the ultrasonic cleaning of a chain I posted March 14, where one had cleaned for about 4 h at 70°C until all the wax was dissolved. This longer time we will take into consideration when cleaning the final IT in the Dental Lab next week. Edited May 2, 2018 by spaceman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted May 1, 2018 Share Posted May 1, 2018 To dissolve the wax, you'll need a non-polar hydrocarbon. Have you tried gasoline or lighter fluid? Acetone is very polar, as is water. Polar solvents will need heat to melt the wax and a soap-like additive to suspend the wax that comes off the piece. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted May 2, 2018 Author Share Posted May 2, 2018 Okay, I've heard of gasoline, maybe that's what I'm still testing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted May 2, 2018 Author Share Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) Hello friends, meanwhile, I also got the WSF-Intertank, which gives me a comparison between these two materials. And I have to confess that I'm quite surprised, especially since the details come out well despite the slightly grainy surface. And since there is no shrinkage in the WSF material during printing, the IT fits exactly between the two ET parts. Of course, the roughness looks blatant on these macro shots, but already with some distance from the normal viewing perspective, it looks much friendlier And if the IT will be painted, he should also fit optically well to the other two ET parts, which additionally shall get their insulating foam look. Since WSF printing uses powdered plastic and no support wax, the parts have only a slight powdery residue that can be removed by slight rinsing off in dish water, as Bill (niart17) has reported for his 1/72 WSF-Intertank. In this context, it would be interesting if Bill could tell us, what kind of primer coat and paint he did use for his WSF-IT. Because WSF is porous and sucks up a lot of moisture, one should let dry the parts for several days, before one applies a primer. But all in all it means, that cleaning of WSF parts should be less expensive than of FUD parts. Edited May 2, 2018 by spaceman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
crowe-t Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) Manfred, For the WSF parts a high build or scratch filler primer works great to fill in some of the texture. I started doing this on a WSF car body to smooth it out. On the IT it won't be easy to sand all the primer smooth with all the small grooves but the IT will look OK with some texture. Considering all the problems you are having with cleaning off the wax and the fit issue the WSF IT may be a better option. Mike. Edited May 2, 2018 by crowe-t Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted May 2, 2018 Author Share Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) Thanks Mike, I'm still thinking too, but I hope I will get a grip on the cleaning of my final FUD-IT in the Dental lab. Then I will paint both variants and can compare them. Michael Key highly recommended a spray called Mr. Surfacer for the WSF-IT , which is available in 500, 1000, and 1500. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002DTL7NU/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me= Do you know this stuff? Edited May 2, 2018 by spaceman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hotdog Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 Manfred, The WSF might be the way to go. As you know, the ET is not smooth. It has a foam texture. So maybe the WSF intertank, once you have it covered in filler primer and all the final coats of paint, might be perfect. No need for the FUD to be smooth and wax-free then. Plus, WSF is cheaper! I'll be watching to see what you end up going with. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
crowe-t Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 Manfred, I haven't used Mr. Surfacer but it seems to be a filler primer which will work. A filler primer goes on a bit thicker to fill minor imperfections and scratches. I used Duplicolor Filler primer on the car body but it doesn't matter what brand is used. The Mr. Surfacer will do the same thing. Mike. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted May 4, 2018 Author Share Posted May 4, 2018 (edited) On 5/3/2018 at 3:28 AM, Hotdog said: Manfred, The WSF might be the way to go. As you know, the ET is not smooth. It has a foam texture. So maybe the WSF intertank, once you have it covered in filler primer and all the final coats of paint, might be perfect. No need for the FUD to be smooth and wax-free then. Plus, WSF is cheaper! I'll be watching to see what you end up going with. Hi Brian, yep, the WSF-IT surprisingly looks really awesome. But I do not give up the ghost and I hope to get a grip on the FUD-IT still and give it a new chance, when I can use again the better possibilities of the Dental laboratory. Meanwhile, I talked to a BANDELIN expert who gave me valuable tips on ultrasonic cleaning conditions I never heard before and might be the key to success. Edited May 4, 2018 by spaceman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted May 4, 2018 Author Share Posted May 4, 2018 On 5/3/2018 at 5:14 AM, crowe-t said: Manfred, I haven't used Mr. Surfacer but it seems to be a filler primer which will work. A filler primer goes on a bit thicker to fill minor imperfections and scratches. I used Duplicolor Filler primer on the car body but it doesn't matter what brand is used. The Mr. Surfacer will do the same thing. Mike. Thanks Mike, I will try both variants and then choose the best. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted May 4, 2018 Author Share Posted May 4, 2018 (edited) Hello everybody, before I go into detail about with the final FUD-IT, here are both IT variants one more time in comparison. In preparation for the cleaning campaign in the Dental Lab I have again scrutinized the FUD-IT under my new magnifying glass and taken macro shots all-around, in order to be able to better control the critical points on site, whether or how far the wax residuals have been removed. As I have already described, the last of the three FUD-ITs has the fewest wax residuals, once more confirming the different quality of the Shapeways aftertreatment. In the circled areas one can see clusters of wax residuals in the grooves, which are visible more or less well due to the low FUD contrast. And after a full circumnavigation of the IT, I'm back at the starting point at the two Fairings, wherewith I want to let it go at that for today. Edited May 4, 2018 by spaceman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 Hey Manfred. Sorry man, I totally missed the question you'd posted about the primer I used. Actually on the intertank for my build I didn't use a primer at all since I was painting the tank with the multitone texture paint. It pretty much acted like a primer before I painted the tank with Citadel Vomit brown (which I think they renamed the color to something else now) I don't know if that will help in your case since you're in a smaller scale and may not want ot use the heavier texture paint. I guess trial and error may be in order. Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted May 5, 2018 Author Share Posted May 5, 2018 Hallo Bill, on these images one can see your not painted WSF Intertank, sitting between the other two ET parts, which are painted with the Texture Spray. And here the whole ET is painted with the orange paint, and the IT does not look like that it's primed before with the Texture Spray. But maybe that's wrong too. So again my question of how you primed your WSF Intertank before you painted the whole ET with Citadel Vomit brown. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 ahhh...yes I was mistaken. I did not prime the intertank at all. The nose cone and lower tank was sprayed with the texture paint and then the whole thing was painted the brown color. Hope that helps. Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted May 5, 2018 Author Share Posted May 5, 2018 Thanks Bill, I already suspected that, so the IT is not primed with the Texture Spray. In a Shapeways tutorial I also found the same, that no primer is necessary. Therefore, but again a question about the painting of the ET with the brown/orange color. Since I suspect that you have not just airbrushed only one layer, how many layers have you applied and how long have you dried it in between? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 Hey Manfred, I'm sorry I don't recall specific times or number of coats, I just sprayed until it looked right to me. I'm sure it took at least 3 coats on the unprimed inter tank. Wish I could give you more but I have a hard time remembering what color socks I wore yesterday. 😁 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted May 8, 2018 Author Share Posted May 8, 2018 Thanks Bill for your last hints. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted May 12, 2018 Author Share Posted May 12, 2018 (edited) Hello everybody, in preparation for the decisive cleaning of the last FUD-IT in the Dental lab, I have dealt more intensively with the matter and looked around further. In the already shown BANDELIN Video of the ultrasonic cleaning of the chain the intensive cleaner TICKOPUR R 60 (10%) was used for approx. 2 - 3 h at 70 °C. In a corresponding product information of the DR. H. STAMM GmbH I found this information, which made me unsure referring to the cleaning time, as they are much shorter. Application with ultrasound Dosage: 2 - 20 % Cleaning time: 1 - 10 min. Temperature: 20 - 80 °C Application without ultrasound Dosage: 10 - 30 % Cleaning time: up to 12 h Temperature: 20 - 80 °C Therefore I have contacted BANDELIN and received the following answer from the DR. H. STAMM GmbH (Plant Manager Stephan Herzberg), what amazed me at first. The cleaning time in removing the support material is a special application, which deviates considerably from the usual vleaning times, which are recommended in the product information, but have been determined by tests and have already been used successfully by several customers. A soapy water will probably not bring the desired cleaning result even with prolonged time, which you can of course test. We recommend the use of TICKOPUR R 60 with the application parameters given in the video. Thereupon I contacted the manager and first learned that the DR. H. STAMM GmbH historically belongs to the corporate group BANDELIN and cleaning and disinfection preparations for SONOREX Ultrasound Technology developed and produced. Then he willingly gave me information to my questions about the application parameters given in the video , as well as special advice for cleaning my Intertank. Since the strongest ultrasound effect in the trough occurs from below, the IT should not be upright during the cleaning because of the grooves, but lying longitudinally in a glass insert, and by stepwise rotation about the longitudinal axis after about 15 minutes in TICKOPUR Bath at 70 ° C cleaned and checked in between. For the best cavitation performance, the glass insert should have a distance from the bottom of the tank of approx. 2 - 3 cm and, because of the connection itself, also be surrounded by water + cleaning agent, otherwise losses would occur. Considering the filigree grooves of the Intertanks he thinks that longer cleaning times of about 2 - 3 h might be necessary, which is why checks after shorter intervals would make sense. Now all I have to do is wait for the ordered TICKOPUR, and then I will go back to the Dental lab for the Final Countdown. Edited May 12, 2018 by spaceman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
crowe-t Posted May 13, 2018 Share Posted May 13, 2018 Manfred, Have you tried using sand paper in the grooves to remove the wax or tried scraping it out? The WSF IT may still be the better option if you can't figure out a good way to clean the wax. Mike. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted May 13, 2018 Author Share Posted May 13, 2018 (edited) Hi Mike, yep, I've tried scraping it out off the Stringer valleys with the steel ruler, but thereby it can happen that you break through the valley, as it happened here at the IT which I have cleaned with oven spray. But I think I'll manage it with the final IT at my next trip to the Dental Lab if I follow the instructions of the BANDELIN expert. Otherwise I'll take the WSF Intertank, which fortunately has no support wax, as we learned from Bill. Edited May 13, 2018 by spaceman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted May 20, 2018 Author Share Posted May 20, 2018 (edited) Hello friends, due to some short vacation in the Dental lab the Ultrasonic cleaning of the FUD-Intertank will take some time, I've thought again about the further building process and came to the following decision. Since I've been working intensively on the External Tank/Intertank lately, it actually makes sense to keep going and completing it as the basic building block for the Shuttle Stack, i.e. including the related details such as LO2 Feedline, GO2/GH2Press. Lines, the Ice/Frost Ramps and PAL Ramps, as well as the Orbiter Attachments. This includes then also the imitation of the Instafoam insulation structure of the front and rear ET parts by the special "Flour technique" as well as the final priming and paintwork. Then it will continue with the SRBs and the Orbiter, which finally complete the Shuttle stack. Only then will I proceed to the construction of the Launch Tower (FSS/RSS), whereby the complete stack MLP will be available for control, in particular when it will depend on every millimeter for increasing the tower to the needed height. Furthermore I decided for not to let be modeled the Ice/Frost Ramps as a 3D set, but rather to use the filigree ramps from the already presented Newware Kit (NW131), which one can not do better actually, which is why I have now bought myself this kit, which I would like to introduce here again briefly in some images. These are predominantly resin parts, as well as a PE sheet with finest details for the ET and the SRBs as well as for the orbiter, incl. some Decals. Although the kit is designed specifically for the Revell Shuttle Stack (1/144), some parts can also be used for the Airfix Stack, so such as here among others the fine structured SRB Forward Frustum & Nose Cone, if I measured correctly. Below are some of the tiny Ice/Frost Ramps and one of the filigree SSME engine nozzles. Here is the PE sheet once again. For the engine nozzles, I actually wanted to use the kit from RealSpace Models, which I had set aside already long time ago and now could compare to the Newware nozzles. It immediately stands out that the RealSpace SSMEs look more squat and seem to be slightly larger than those of Newware. And once we're comparing already, I also added the nozzles of Revell (left) and those of Airfix (grey), from which you can now choose what you like better ... For my taste, then the SSMEs of Revell and Airfix quickly discards, whereby this begs immediately the question of the dimensions in comparison to the original. I have only found these SSME dimensions by Pratt & Whitney: Lenght: 168 in. = 4,30 m = 29,9 mm (1/144)Diameter: 96 in. = Ø 2,40 m = Ø 16,7 mm (1/144) Unfortunately this is only the total length of the SSME, but not the length of the engine nozzle. Maybe someone can help. Edited May 20, 2018 by spaceman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
K2Pete Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 It'll be so-o-o nice to see you building again! And my vote goes to the New Ware SSME nozzle. Pete Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 (edited) Based on drawings and photos in the book(s) by Dennis Jenkins the Realspace parts look to be overly bell shaped (too much curvature at top) where the Newware parts might be too slim? Hard to tell without a better side view. Jenkin’s book lists dimensions as 7.8 ft (93.6”) diameter and total height as 13.9 ft (166.8”). Scaling dimensions from that drawing I would say the height of the bell is ~100” at the point where the heat shield intersects the bell. In 1/144 that would make the bell diameter 0.65” (16.5 mm) and bell height 0.7” (17.8 mm). Scaling from the same drawing the outer diameter of the bell at the top (at heat shield) would be ~45” or 0.31” (7.9 mm) in 1/144. edit: found the same drawing on someone else’s website: Edited May 20, 2018 by habu2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
crowe-t Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 Manfred, I can't wait to see the stack come together. The Real Space SSME's are a bit oversized but once installed/painted and the whole stack is together they'll look fine. I used them on my Revell shuttle stack. I actually like how they look, being slightly larger than they should be. The Newware SSME's are more accurate looking. Maybe not 100% accurate but are more accurate. I do believe the openings of the Airfix SSME's are somewhat accurately sized and they look about the same size as the openings of the Newware SSME's. With the stack in the upright position the SSME's won't be seen too much. Mike. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted May 22, 2018 Author Share Posted May 22, 2018 On 5/20/2018 at 3:59 PM, K2Pete said: It'll be so-o-o nice to see you building again! And my vote goes to the New Ware SSME nozzle. Pete Thanks Pete, I can fully understand, that you want to see action ... As matters stand I would also prefer Newware's nozzles. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.