Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
Panda T-55A
SgtRam
Contributing Writer
#197
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Friday, May 13, 2016 - 11:46 PM UTC
Another T-55 on the way, this time from Panda.
RobinNilsson
TOS Moderator
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Friday, May 13, 2016 - 11:50 PM UTC
Tempting, tempting .....
Cantstopbuyingkits
Joined: January 28, 2015
KitMaker: 2,099 posts
Armorama: 1,920 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 14, 2016 - 01:07 AM UTC
Nice, Panda's is really stepping up on the quality of their new kits.
rogerjo1
Joined: November 12, 2010
KitMaker: 950 posts
Armorama: 905 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 14, 2016 - 01:29 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Nice, Panda's is really stepping up on the quality of their new kits.
have they have any quality... 
matlev
Joined: June 02, 2013
KitMaker: 53 posts
Armorama: 53 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 14, 2016 - 02:01 AM UTC
Walkable track links sounds like an intetesting feature, very innovative hehe
arpikaszabo
Joined: February 13, 2006
KitMaker: 674 posts
Armorama: 637 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 14, 2016 - 02:21 AM UTC
Quoted Text
have they have any quality...
Let the trashing commence.
SgtRam
Contributing Writer#197
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 14, 2016 - 02:39 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextNice, Panda's is really stepping up on the quality of their new kits.
I love how people can bash stuff they have not seen. And yes I would have to agree with a previous poster that Panda quality have been improving with each release.
rogerjo1
Joined: November 12, 2010
KitMaker: 950 posts
Armorama: 905 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 14, 2016 - 03:56 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextNice, Panda's is really stepping up on the quality of their new kits.
I love how people can bash stuff they have not seen. And yes I would have to agree with a previous poster that Panda quality have been improving with each release.
yes they have maybe improving the quality with every new release but that not mean they are good quality anyway if you compare to Meng, Takom, Tamiya....But that is my opinion and i respect your opinion...
Tank1812
Joined: April 29, 2014
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 14, 2016 - 04:13 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextQuoted TextNice, Panda's is really stepping up on the quality of their new kits.
I love how people can bash stuff they have not seen. And yes I would have to agree with a previous poster that Panda quality have been improving with each release.
But that is my opinion and i respect your opinion...
I don't know if I would add Takom that list. I have heard people say that but Pa-II is not what I would call good. It nice but not in the same level as Tamiya. I freely admit that might be a one off less then stellar kit for them. The FT-17 I have looks very nice but I have not built it yet so I can't compare them those two at this time.
davidg
Joined: December 28, 2007
KitMaker: 47 posts
Armorama: 44 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 14, 2016 - 06:58 AM UTC
I am currently building Takom'sT-55AMV and have already found a couple of issues by step 11. The light guards cannot be added over the reactive armour blocks as shown in instructions and reference pictures. The blocks need to be left off to use kit parts. Parts R6 and R7, fender stowage bins, have the ends facing forward totally open. I had to fill them in with sheet styrene. R7 may be covered by adjacent bin but gap for R6 to wide not to be seen when finished. Cables on J19 must be replaced to get them to fit around pioneer tools even if you follow kit instructions and cut them. Anyway not what I expected in this kit, so I will watch to see what Panda offers and hold off on Takom T-54 till I see what Mimiart's looks like. Then again I remember Lindbergs T-55 and other early offerings Now the more the merrier. I really love that both Takom and Panda have done the external fuel lines something that should have been done on Tamiyas T-55 or covered by aftermarket companies and I am not counting Legends as I still had to fiddle about with wire and bending it just right.
jasegreene
Joined: October 21, 2013
KitMaker: 751 posts
Armorama: 751 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 14, 2016 - 07:44 AM UTC
Another T-55 and this time we get a chance to build an accurate Czech built model will be so great.I will first see what the reviews say but I might still buy one early.
dylans
Joined: March 05, 2009
KitMaker: 394 posts
Armorama: 380 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 14, 2016 - 04:59 PM UTC
are those the correct tracks for an early T-55?
I am of the opinion that you cant have too many T-55 kits. I currently have 4 in front of me. I am looking forward to the ICM T-54 and it looks like Panda have done their homework on this one.
we will have to wait and see what the plastic looks like.
I am of the opinion that you cant have too many T-55 kits. I currently have 4 in front of me. I am looking forward to the ICM T-54 and it looks like Panda have done their homework on this one.
we will have to wait and see what the plastic looks like.
hugohuertas
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 15, 2016 - 02:16 AM UTC
Quoted Text
But that is my opinion and i respect your opinion...
I'm with you on this...
Panda released some original stuff, but far from the industry "leaders" quality.
Not to talk about their instruction sheets.
dmiles
Joined: August 17, 2008
KitMaker: 160 posts
Armorama: 159 posts
Posted: Monday, May 16, 2016 - 03:12 PM UTC
With regards to quality have a look at the ZTZ 99A that I reviewed in Jan
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/review/11962
This kit is very good and I reckon it is on par and mat be slightly better than the current T-72s released by Trumpeter.
As I said in the review the only down sides I can see so far is the barrel, the lack of plumbing for the external fuel tanks, and the vague painting instructions.
Therefore I am willing to keep an open mind about this release.
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/review/11962
This kit is very good and I reckon it is on par and mat be slightly better than the current T-72s released by Trumpeter.
As I said in the review the only down sides I can see so far is the barrel, the lack of plumbing for the external fuel tanks, and the vague painting instructions.
Therefore I am willing to keep an open mind about this release.
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Monday, May 16, 2016 - 04:05 PM UTC
Quoted Text
With regards to quality have a look at the ZTZ 99A that I reviewed in Jan
The problem with most Panda (and KittyHawk) kits was buildability (engineering, fit, quality of instructions). They all look great in a box - it is when you try to build them when problems appear.
Hellrabbit
Joined: June 28, 2015
KitMaker: 139 posts
Armorama: 139 posts
Posted: Monday, May 16, 2016 - 04:40 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextWith regards to quality have a look at the ZTZ 99A that I reviewed in Jan
The problem with most Panda (and KittyHawk) kits was buildability (engineering, fit, quality of instructions). They all look great in a box - it is when you try to build them when problems appear.
personally I have built the ztz-99A and I think it is one of those best kit I have seen in this year. Highly recommended. Both in accuracy and kit fitting. No doubt western model clubs will not interested in such subject for some reason. But it is a nice looking kit and I have seen several well-known(I won't use famous as I think this is an offend to them) modellers building this kit mean while. Wish to see the finished work asap.
panamadan
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Monday, May 16, 2016 - 07:36 PM UTC
Onkos1
Joined: May 02, 2015
KitMaker: 102 posts
Armorama: 90 posts
Posted: Monday, May 16, 2016 - 09:48 PM UTC
Vodnik is right. i'm building a Polish Cougar and the fit if far, far from perfect...almost like Kinetics MATV...that one was terrible. Even with Eduard's Big Ed kit was a nightmare.
Hellrabbit
Joined: June 28, 2015
KitMaker: 139 posts
Armorama: 139 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 02:29 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextWith regards to quality have a look at the ZTZ 99A that I reviewed in Jan
The problem with most Panda (and KittyHawk) kits was buildability (engineering, fit, quality of instructions). They all look great in a box - it is when you try to build them when problems appear.
here is my build photos of their ZTZ-99 and the quality of kit has improved a lot. very nice fitting.
Jennings
Joined: April 30, 2016
KitMaker: 73 posts
Armorama: 69 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 02:37 AM UTC
I'm not going to "bash" (which is another way of saying "objectively evaluate the scale fidelity of the model to the real article" depending on your point of view and your bias), but I will say that Panda's other incarnation - Kitty Hawk - has seen the last dollar of my money for one of their aircraft kits. They have some okay stuff, but the majority of their aircraft kits suffers from very poor basic research, design by someone who CLEARLY knows nothing about real aircraft and is equally clearly NOT a modeler himself. Perhaps they have another designer doing the armor stuff, but I, for one, will definitely wait for a much more comprehensive review of the accuracy of any of their armor kits - especially given the veritable FLOOD of new, very high quality stuff coming from Meng, AFV Club, Dragon, etc. Panda would be at the very end of my list of manufacturers to buy from unless I hear that something they've done is without compare. If they were alone in the field, it would be a different story. But they're going head to head against companies that are out-engineering them seven ways from Sunday as far as I'm concerned. Maybe their new stuff is great. I hope it is, but based on their other products, I'm not betting the farm on it yet.
Konigwolf
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 03:29 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I'm not going to "bash" (which is another way of saying "objectively evaluate the scale fidelity of the model to the real article" depending on your point of view and your bias)
Actually as you say you're not going to "objectively evaluate", all you do is bash and not provide any objectivity and information to back up your stance just basic its not good, not why and how its bad. I have just started Kitty Hawks UH-1Y Venom and I see no problems so far. What many people fail to remember in all this hate and bashing going round is how far these companies are coming in a short time, some with a relatively small budget vs cost of kit manufacture. Think Dragon quality from the late 80's compared to a top of line Dragon Tiger or Pz IV kit now. Tamiya are still re-popping kits meant for motorization from the 60's with massive holes in the hulls and basic detail not a bad word against them.
Quoted Text
veritable FLOOD of new, very high quality stuff coming from .... Dragon.
Only flood of NEW stuff coming from Dragon of late is their Black Plague line, now that's high quality PMSL
If you think you can do so much better either A: Do as Pawel does and offer direct assistance to these companies or B: Start you own company and do it yourself?
Removed by original poster on 05/17/16 - 23:24:15 (GMT).
Cantstopbuyingkits
Joined: January 28, 2015
KitMaker: 2,099 posts
Armorama: 1,920 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 04:23 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Only flood of NEW stuff coming from Dragon of late is their Black Plague line, now that's high quality PMSL
Plus kiddy Marvel bobbleheads and Star Wars kit that take liberties with the source designs despite them owning the license
hugohuertas
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 04:31 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Vodnik is right. i'm building a Polish Cougar and the fit if far, far from perfect...almost like Kinetics MATV...that one was terrible. Even with Eduard's Big Ed kit was a nightmare.
The Cougar 6x6 kit is even worst than Kinetic's M-ATV...
I started it a while ago, and left it aside until I feel in the mood to face the annoying fit of the parts.
Oh, and the complex engineering way they chose to go.
But let's wait and see what they deliver in the T-55 kit, don't loose our hope... -I must confess that I have not that much in this case, but will be very happy if they prove me wrong-
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.