#21  
Old 07-27-2009, 11:11 AM
Dave Krueger Dave Krueger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotMagnet View Post
Something about Tamiya kits I think deserves to be mentioned is that they are remarkably easy to assemble.
Well, that's certainly something to consider. Sometimes I think these models break things up into smaller and smaller pieces simply for the purpose of ratcheting up the parts count without delivering any benefit. On the other hand, I'm strictly a casual level modeler, so I assume there are reasons for doing it that way that I'm just not aware of. I like the fact that the tires are separate from the road wheels on the Panzer IV. (One thing I'm looking forward to on the Panzer II is the fact that there are far fewer wheels on it!)

On the other hand, if it doesn't take me a long time to build a model , I'd probably feel like I got ripped off.
Reply With Quote top
  #22  
Old 07-27-2009, 12:16 PM
James Tainton's Avatar
James Tainton James Tainton is offline
vBench
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: I'm not really sure... I just woke up and found my
Posts: 4,724
The benefit of more parts is more detail. IMHO
I personally like more parts- being into detail and all. I build for many reasons- and one of them is to see the engineering involved in what makes these things tick. You can't really understand that unless you have to build it. I would rather have individual track links for example than "rubber band" tracks.
But I also like it when all sub-assemblies are broken down into their separate parts- helps me learn. Take a look at watanabe's work for example- he get's so into as to make a miniature replica that almost could start up and drive away. Or Amba's 250- I love such detail!
- for the casual builder I guess a model that has the upper hull all as one piece glued to the bottom hull is simpler- but I wouldn't say it's better.

Last edited by James Tainton; 07-27-2009 at 12:37 PM.
Reply With Quote top
  #23  
Old 07-27-2009, 03:04 PM
Dave Krueger Dave Krueger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 29
I definitely like the individual link tracks. The Dragon Sherman and Academy M3 Lee kits that I built had one-piece tracks. They were actually not bad, but I think the link tracks are much easier to get the sag correct and the harder plastic is easier to clean up if that's needed.

The Dragon 1-piece tracks were definitely better than the Academy in terms of detail and mold/ejector marks. I think they were called DS tracks. Neither the Sherman or the Lee that I built had much in the way of sag, though. From what I gather, American tanks didn't generally have the kind of sag that German and Russian tanks had.
Reply With Quote top
  #24  
Old 07-30-2009, 08:44 AM
majorchuck's Avatar
majorchuck majorchuck is offline
vBench
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 114
good kit bad kit

ilaleiri kits were not bad for the money some cleanup work on all kits and fit problems on some when i encounter a bad kit i wright on the box what is good what was the worst on mysd kfz 140/1kit #6448 i have written drive sproket locator pins out of allinementroad wheel hubs off center poor kit value 48.00 can. ruimentry int. for open turret ,good qualities-good lower hull fine trak links. the best kit from them crusader re release and add to kit for opp. battleaxe N.A. here is a bit of photo show and tell
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	my crusader 1.jpg
Views:	151
Size:	206.6 KB
ID:	1950   Click image for larger version

Name:	my crusader 2.jpg
Views:	159
Size:	230.1 KB
ID:	1951   Click image for larger version

Name:	my crusader 3.jpg
Views:	141
Size:	198.3 KB
ID:	1952   Click image for larger version

Name:	my crusader 4.jpg
Views:	141
Size:	234.4 KB
ID:	1953  
Reply With Quote top
  #25  
Old 08-01-2009, 09:21 PM
ShotMagnet's Avatar
ShotMagnet ShotMagnet is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Tainton
I personally like more parts- being into detail and all. I build for many reasons- and one of them is to see the engineering involved in what makes these things tick. You can't really understand that unless you have to build it. I would rather have individual track links for example than "rubber band" tracks.
But I also like it when all sub-assemblies are broken down into their separate parts- helps me learn. Take a look at watanabe's work for example- he get's so into as to make a miniature replica that almost could start up and drive away. Or Amba's 250- I love such detail!
- for the casual builder I guess a model that has the upper hull all as one piece glued to the bottom hull is simpler- but I wouldn't say it's better.
I like more parts as well, so long as it does in fact present a more detailed representation. I also prefer IL tracks, and I don't mind doing the cleanup necessary (when it's necessary).

Still, there's something to be said for just sitting down and kicking one out in the space of a weekend.

On the other hand, I'm still smarting from the botch I seem to have made of the 234/1. Maybe that's coloring my perceptions a bit.


Shot
Reply With Quote top
  #26  
Old 08-02-2009, 08:08 AM
alanmac's Avatar
alanmac alanmac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 228
Hi Dave

I think most people have covered the points in regard to your question already. Very much a case of no manufacturer produces the perfect model kit, but some come pretty close and then it can't be taken for granted that everything they produce is as good or accurate. You certainly are not short as regards information sites on the internet to make an informed choice before buying.

As already mentioned by Scott the PMMS site run by Terry Ashley is an excellent resource although his reviews are mainly focused on the accuracy and finish of a model, with only the build up of major components. Rarely does he have the time to build a kit right through to completed with all detail, paint etc. I'm amazed at what he gets done anyway, when does he sleep

Actual build logs are great because you get to see, step by step how easy/difficult it is to make a particular kit, along with great insights into how best to tackle certain elements. Most of the major armour interest sites carry build logs of one type or another.


I think many base their favourite manufacturers obviously not only on what experience they've had building from those manufacturers in the past but also what is their area of interest, be it WW2, Post War, Modern etc, along with Axis and Allied to further refine their interest. In other words depending on what you like building may also influence what is your favourite maker.

For example if you liked Russian armour and wanted to build a KV I'd recommend Trumpeter, but wouldn't say, like any manufacturer, all their kits are great, it's just they got the KV's pretty well done and at excellent prices.

If you think you'd like to build a Sherman many would suggest you take a look at Tasca's offerings. They are held in high regard by fans of this tank, although you shouldn't disregard Dragon in this regard. Tasca is renowned for its accuracy, lovely detail and superb engineering, but it comes at a price.

If you mention the brand Zvezda most modellers who've built a kit from them will roll their eyes and groan, but they did a really nice job on the German truck they released recently. Most of their catalogue is pretty old and they are an example of a kit manufacturer who uses other companies moulds to produce a kit. This isn't uncommon and most manufacturers have done this at some point.

Tamiya re-boxes certain Italeri kits under its own name in the Far East. Some of the really old Peerless Max (long gone maker) moulds have gone around several makers, the White Scout car is a an example. Released by Peerless Max way back in the 70's (I think) its also come out boxed by Zvezda, Revell, Airfix, and I believe under the Italeri/Testors brand. All the same moulds with a few tweaks and add ons.

I'd actually take a different approach to modelling than having my preferred model manufacturer. I tend to choose a subject then look around for who makes the best (in subjective terms) model of it and make that my choice. Sometimes you'll find it's only available from one maker and you end up using that, if it's rough, as a starting point for a more accurate build using after market accessories etc.


Happy modelling

Alan

Last edited by alanmac; 08-02-2009 at 08:11 AM.
Reply With Quote top
  #27  
Old 08-03-2009, 10:01 AM
Dave Krueger Dave Krueger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by majorchuck View Post
ilaleiri kits were not bad for the money some cleanup work on all kits and fit problems on some when i encounter a bad kit i wright on the box what is good what was the worst on mysd kfz 140/1kit #6448 i have written drive sproket locator pins out of allinementroad wheel hubs off center poor kit value 48.00 can. ruimentry int. for open turret ,good qualities-good lower hull fine trak links. the best kit from them crusader re release and add to kit for opp. battleaxe N.A. here is a bit of photo show and tell
Nice work. Thanks for posting the pictures. There can never be too many pictures on a modeling site.

I do look at what other people say about a kit as long as I can find it in a web search. It's nice to have advance information rather than learning the hard way. It's also interesting to see what other people say about a kit's accuracy, but accuracy is less critical to me that whether the upper hull fits properly on the lower hull. I do, however, look to see if there is a newer kit available that has accuracy errors corrected. That doesn't mean I'll always build the newer kit, but it does factor into the decision.
Reply With Quote top
  #28  
Old 08-03-2009, 05:24 PM
Dave Krueger Dave Krueger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanmac View Post
Most of the major armour interest sites carry build logs of one type or another.
I definitely like stuff like vBench, but I haven't explored many other sites besides this one for "build logs". I have read a number of the PMMS reviews, but nothing that really qualifies as a build log.

I need to get out more.
Reply With Quote top
  #29  
Old 08-11-2009, 11:04 AM
Dave Krueger Dave Krueger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Tainton View Post
Well as you already have the Panzer II/ that one is moot. I would at least upgrade with the Voyager fenders- they are tricky though. See my build.
I've been looking over your Panzer II/F. I think maybe the fenders requires a bit more ambition (and skill) than I'm capable of mustering, but I do like the barrel upgrades. I may go with the Aber MG34. It doesn't look quite as good as the Adlers Nest, but you get two in a package making it a bargain. For the 2 cm, I plan to go with the Lion Marc.

Assuming I break down and shell out the extra bucks, this will be the first time I'm upgraded anything on a model. That's 'cause I'm a lazy, penny-pinchin', tight-wad.
Reply With Quote top
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16 AM.

Advertise with Us

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
planetArmor