Rigth here:

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/news/4581

Sorry for posting directly, was the heat of the moment...

First impressions:

I don't like the AA MG mount, it looks like a T-55's, It seems like the 2A20 barrel lack the bolts in the fume extractor and the weld seams as well. Best regards.

José

Not sure about the AAMG mount, but it looks good to me.

Also, the barrel details, while nice, are not a big concern compared to the need for a accurate base model to work from.

This kit looks GREAT, but lets hope it does not retail for $50...Trumpeter would be wise to pressure the importers to keep the MSRP down so that, in this really bad economy, they make money on volumn rather than depending on a few people to pay large amounts. IF this kit comes out at $40.00 MSRP and I can get it for ~$30.00 discount, I will buy it by the case...seriously. Also assuming that the kits hold up to the accuracy question.

Looks good?

This is an acutal T-62 AA gun mount:



The same mount is fitted to latest T-55 variants like the 1970 model (Peruvian T-55s are this version)

I hope the pics are from a prototype and in the production kit it will be corrected. Best regards.

José.

Hmm, it certainly looks better then their test shot from two years ago, but some discrepancies are still there. They must have designed CAD model from front hull up and mess something thing up in the process. The rear hull looks somewhat off to me.
Anyway good find, Jose.
Were there any pics of renovated BMP-3 test shots?
http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t62.files/BIG-schem.gif

I'm no expert, but from what I can see in the pics, it looks like all the major parts for the AA gun mount are present. I can't speak for the details, as I've never seen a T-62 AAMG mount up close and personal. Anyone care to clarify?

I agree with Jacques on one very important point: if this turns out to be an accurate kit with a reasonable price tag, I will buy a bunch of them.

-YL

I have to say, having built a few Tamiya T-62's with the SP Designs conversions, I just do not see the problem with the AAMG mount. I know it looks different when compared to the Peruvian T-55 picture, but the photo shows a differnt angle of the AAMG and it is much more depressed. It does look good to me...it may also be that the "shock absorbers" (those "rods" on the bottom) may be adjustable, making the model AAMG sit too high ont he pedistal compared to the Peruvian prototype. Get me a kit in hand and we shall see!

As for the rear hull, not sure I see the problem there either George. What are the detail problems you see...I guess I am just stunned by the beauty of it not being the old Tamiya beast!

Well, maybe not the best picture but here it goes:



As you can see, the gun is a little raised and the shock absorbers (those rods) raise with the gun, in fact, it should rise a lot more, believe me, I took those pictures in a local event. In the T-62 kit this is not happening, and there is a build mistake, I think. BTW, the mount in that T-55 is the same as the late T-62

So? Those are pictures of a test shot model, and it may be built with error. So is there anything to bother then? or even anything to mention?

Kit looks sweet, just bring it to the stores!

Cheers
Greg

José, why did you think you can just use images from another site? Do you have permission of the site owner? The person they were supplied to?

The kit looks promising,

Constructive criticism should always be posted, as the manufacturers read these forums as well. So it can help improving the kits in development.

Hi

Well to me it looks good, far far better than Tamiyas. I know many people build out of the box, but as long as the dimensions/angles are good a great model can be built. The Tamiya T-55 is a fantastic accurate kit but there is always room for improvement. Hope to see this in stores soon.

Andy Taylor

I think I figured it out...

First off, Gary, thanks for the sort-of back-handed compliment...I will take what I can get.

Second, I thought the problem, as described, had to do with the HEIGHT of the AAMG on the pedistal etc...Looking over the photos now, I see that the problem IS the height difference between the reciever and the "rods" (dammit, that is what I am calling them until I get a proper education into the parts and pieces of a DShK AAMG). BUT...

Third...it looks like whoever built the kit put those parts on incorrectly. I am not sure if they are upside down or incorrectly placed in some other way. I admit they do not look correct for the mount. And in my looking over the AAMG setups, there are three distinct AAMG "mounts" that the DShK mounts on...some have the rods in a straight line under the holding plate, some have the rods mounted lower down and angeling up to the holding plate, and some have 4 rods. Google DShK picture and you will start to see what I mean.

Fourth and final...until we have a kit, on hand, to dispute parts location and such, there is only so much we can offer in constructive criticism. I agree that the AAMG shoudl be looked into, but the barrel/reciever/details of the DShK look to be correct from what I see. It seems to be a "mount" issue, but could simply be a "build" issue.

And no, I do not think this is a issue of negativity over a kit...the AAMG is a good point. Hey George, do you want to enlighten us to the problem of the rear?

Here are the COMPANY-supplied images of the T-62:

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/news/4581

I'm curious which tracks they will include, vinyl ones or link to link tracks...

Do Trumpeter use anyone for research when developing new kits as Tristar etc do?

Andy

I like it. "Q"

how about an engine for those of us that would like to build it with the "hood" open. and maybe some support pieces (ladder , tools , ammo boxes and ammo )

I have to agree with you. Aftermarket accessory producers exist for this purpose. Don't expect model manufacturers to trick their kits out with every detail you could possibly want.
Trumpeter learned a hard lesson when they produced their 1/48th scale C-47 kit, with all kinds of fancy extras: metal landing gear, lots of photo etch, a fully detailed interior, nicely done engines, rubber wheels, etc., at more than a hundred dollars, only to have Monogram release their own 1/48th AC-47, leaving out some of the pricey bits, so they could sell it for a fourth as much. The AMS modelers who want lots of extras and can afford them can always add their own accessories. But if a manufacturer throws in too much expensive stuff, which should be left optional, he risks driving the price up higher than many modelers can afford, especially in this economic slump. A tough lesson for Trumpeter. Now you see retailers slashing the price of the Trump Skytrain again and again, in desperation. It may actually be the better value of the two kits, all things considered; then again, it may not, but in any case it's simply more costly than many can afford.

Double post.


For a moment I thought that rear mud guards were sticking too far out and the distance between engine housing's upper edge and left fender, right around rear left width light, seems a little short.
Also, there is no curved weld seam atop main gun well; Some clams are missing clams on left side stowage boxes(splitting hairs here).
http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/till_sunderman/t-62/images/t-62_20_of_28.jpg



Thanks for tracks sprue shot, GAOYUE. They look pretty petite for default kit ones. Are they planing to include OMSh style ones as well?