# Anyone know Halinski's spec for "Bristolboard"?

Discussion in 'Tips, Tutorials & Tools' started by rlwhitt, Feb 22, 2007.

1. ### rlwhittActive Member

Often Halinksi kits specify laminating certain parts to "bristolboard" (marked with + or ++). In the past I've used 110lb stuff (0.23 mm) and now have some Strathmore Bristol that is 260 gsm, 0.32 mm (also specified to be 100lb). And I know that this particular Bristol is not the only weight/thickness out there - Carl (Golden Bear) mentions having some Bristol that sounds a good bit thicker than what I have.

So, does anyone know exactly what AH means when they say "Bristolboard"? I ask because in my next project it might become more important to get this right.

Thanks!
Rick
2. ### Leif OhMember

I have asked about this, too, when building a Halinski model, and got the answer from Polish members that I could use ordinary thickness paper (which would be in the order of 0.2mm, right?).

Thus, in your case, I would go with 0.23mm, rather than 0.32mm but that's just a hunch.

The kind of Bristol I have is around 0.25mm (probably what you have). It isn't called "Bristol", but in the artists shop this is what I got when asking for that. It is hard paper made for airbrush artists. (And, incidentally, much tougher on a knife than ordinary paper.)

It would also put the magnitude of doubling papers in Halinski models in a logical order:

+ = 0.25mm
* = 0.50mm
** = 1.0mm

But then, of course, you also get a whole new set of thicknesses:

Thin paper alone is 0.10mm
Thin paper on + is 0.10 + 0.25 = 0.35mm
Thin paper on * is 0.10 + 0.50 = 0.60mm
Thin paper on ** is 0.10 + 1.00 = 1.10mm

Regular paper alone is 0.20mm
Doubled up regular paper is 0.20 + 0.20 = 0.40mm
Regular paper on + is 0.20 + 0.25 = 0.45mm (and stiffer than just doubling)
Regular paper on * is 0.20 + 0.50 = 0.70mm
Regular paper on ** is 0.20 + 1.00 = 1.20mm

Enough to give you a headache, particularly when rescaling! If anybody's interested I worked out a scheme for paper thickness when rescaling Halinski style 1:33 models to 1:87 scale. Go to this post at Kartonbau.de (in English).

If my received information about the thickness of Bristol is wrong, I might have to rework that scheme. Ouch!

Leif
3. ### rlwhittActive Member

Thanks Leif!

This info is in fact going toward a rescale, but going larger. So I'm concerned that what might make little difference at 1:33 if I pick the wrong thickness might get multiplied at the larger scale (after factoring the scale multipler on all the materials) to a point where it starts to cause problems.

I have been reading up on some of your old rescale materials with great interest. This will certainly be a challenge for me!

Rick

5. ### rlwhittActive Member

Thaks for the link Gil. The page shows yet another different weight/type of Bristol than the 2 I've had! Man, paper is a confusing subject!

6. ### josveActive Member

When it comes to halinski kits, I read something about that issue on a german forum, and someone please correct me if this is wrong!!
The Halinski kits are supposed to be glued to ca 0,8mm card to obtain ca 1mm thickness of the finished part.
And 0,3mm to get the 0,5mm.
When it comes to the * or + , I just glue the piece to the same paper it's printed on, and it has worked fine so far.

Other models I have built from Modelik and GPM says in the instructions that
*** is 1mm (part glued to 1mm karton)
** is 0,5mm (part glued to 0,5mm karton)
* is "glue to paper" or 0,2mm karton,that equals ca 170-200 grams paper.
This means that it's taken hight for the total thickness being 1,2-0,7 and 0,4mm total thickness.

With so many different ways to measure card/karton i'm not surprised that it can be a problem sometimes to get the right size.
7. ### Prowler901Member

Thanks a bunch for that link Gil. That helps a whole lot. Also, thanks to josve for that information. Very useful indeed for a newbie like me

Regards,
Todd
8. ### Leif OhMember

Rick,

For my part, I was concerned that the wrong paper thickness would have greater consequences when scaling down, since a 0.1mm difference from a correctly calculated rescaled value, relatively speaking, would be some three times larger in 1:87.

While in 1:16 it would only mean half the relative difference.

So, if 1:16 is your scale, I think you'll be safe if you make some intuitively "right" guesses. Like glue on 2mm card for **, on 1mm card for *, and, perhaps, your thicker "Bristol" for +.

For scales like 1:25, you'll have to do some trickier calculations, involving doubling with different combinations of thicknesses you have around, like 1mm and Bristol, ordinary paper and one or two layers of Bristol, etc.

You're in for some systematic tabulations, I think... And don't forget to share your system when you're done; many will be looking forward to it!

Leif

PS. If you end up with many layers in your calculations, don't forget that every layer of glue will add some 0.05mm (or perhaps a little bit less; very approximately), in my recent experience.
9. ### rlwhittActive Member

I will certainly document my workflow and assumptions in a build thread, and see how they pan out.

People may think I'm nuts, but I'm doing a sort of odd scale, 1:20.
I want something that's a big enough increase to make it worthwhile, but looking at 1:16 it was obvious that too many parts would not fit on one letter size sheet (I want to be able to print @ home). At close to 1:20, it's an even multiple of 65% increase, and the only thing that will span sheets are the main wing skins - and they have a natural seam printed about halfway out that will do nicely. And I have just the right thickness materials on hand to make 165% work out right as well.

There's sure a lot of prep work, as you well know. All the scanning and resegregation of parts to fit on sheets is quite the job!

Rick

10. ### Leif OhMember

1:20; nice - seam in wing halfways; hrmm - you should start a guessing game!

I'll place my initial bet on a Vickers Vimy.

L.
11. ### rlwhittActive Member

Nah, I've got no problem divulging what it is, it's the P-47D Thunderbolt. Love that Jug! Right now I'm also scrounging around for photo research in the thoughts that I might add a little extra detail in visible places, since at this size it'd be more feasible for me. I got a few site links from pawell over at Kartonbau - I've been following his great build over there adding all sorts of extra stuff even at 1:33!

Rick