Anybody else started Mini Arts new SU76?
Started it last weekend, just completed section 10 of 37.
This is one of the most challenging kits I have tackled.
Plenty of detail, plenty of work to do.
Hosted by Jacques Duquette
Mini Art SU76
KAYELL
Joined: February 16, 2008
KitMaker: 107 posts
Armorama: 81 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 10:25 PM UTC
vanize
Joined: January 30, 2006
KitMaker: 1,954 posts
Armorama: 629 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 10:51 PM UTC
I bought one last week and have been fondling it, but have decided to save it for the "On the Eastern Front" campaign.
Please give us more detail on the build. what is challenging about it? what lessons did you learn?
Please give us more detail on the build. what is challenging about it? what lessons did you learn?
Martinnnn
Joined: April 26, 2004
KitMaker: 5,435 posts
Armorama: 2,762 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 10:52 PM UTC
Well I saw it in the local hobby shop and I really had to control myself not buying it, having low funds at the moment. It's pretty high on the wish list, though I'm not sure yet if I will buy the German or Soviet version.
Do you have any pics of your project?
Martin
Do you have any pics of your project?
Martin
Drader
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 11:00 PM UTC
I've got one on its way to me in the post as I we speak.
There's an interesting thread on ML at the moment about dealing with the challenges of the suspension. Looks like Steve Zaloga is building one so we can expect an article somewhere sometime soon.
David
There's an interesting thread on ML at the moment about dealing with the challenges of the suspension. Looks like Steve Zaloga is building one so we can expect an article somewhere sometime soon.
David
KAYELL
Joined: February 16, 2008
KitMaker: 107 posts
Armorama: 81 posts
Posted: Friday, February 29, 2008 - 08:26 AM UTC
Some images of the start
Some images of the breech detail
Note the sink mark
Tub and Gun
Now to do some more.
Scalpal and sanding sticks at the ready!!!
Some images of the breech detail
Note the sink mark
Tub and Gun
Now to do some more.
Scalpal and sanding sticks at the ready!!!
SSGToms
Joined: April 02, 2005
KitMaker: 3,608 posts
Armorama: 3,092 posts
Posted: Friday, February 29, 2008 - 11:04 AM UTC
I built the T-70 and the swing arms are very weak, but I didn't have any real problem with the suspension.
sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 01:24 AM UTC
I don't know but the detail comes across as kind of "soft" nice build but to me it looks soft.
Maybe Dragon will jump on board with their "own" version this time and not the "other one".
Maybe Dragon will jump on board with their "own" version this time and not the "other one".
t34-85
Joined: August 16, 2006
KitMaker: 232 posts
Armorama: 230 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 10:28 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I don't know but the detail comes across as kind of "soft" nice build but to me it looks soft.
Maybe Dragon will jump on board with their "own" version this time and not the "other one".
Actually Dragon already issued an SU-76 kit, about a decade ago. It was a reboxed Russian production and it was terrible: overscale, soft detail, warped parts, very hard to build. The same kit is now sold under the Maquette label. Stay away from that, the MiniArt kit is very nice, maybe not Dragon quality, but still pretty good.
Chas78_wa
Joined: January 22, 2008
KitMaker: 50 posts
Armorama: 46 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 11:31 AM UTC
Looks like a nicely detailed kit Keith...
Charlie
Charlie
KAYELL
Joined: February 16, 2008
KitMaker: 107 posts
Armorama: 81 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 10:03 PM UTC
Getting there...
The Hull nearly complete.
Just about to prime the inside of the fighting compartment.
Note the scratch build clasp on the front plate, this is following an offering to the great carpet god.
The Hull nearly complete.
Just about to prime the inside of the fighting compartment.
Note the scratch build clasp on the front plate, this is following an offering to the great carpet god.
sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2008 - 12:49 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI don't know but the detail comes across as kind of "soft" nice build but to me it looks soft.
Maybe Dragon will jump on board with their "own" version this time and not the "other one".
Actually Dragon already issued an SU-76 kit, about a decade ago. It was a reboxed Russian production and it was terrible: overscale, soft detail, warped parts, very hard to build. The same kit is now sold under the Maquette label. Stay away from that, the MiniArt kit is very nice, maybe not Dragon quality, but still pretty good.
That is what I said t-34.
Maybe Dragon will jump on board with their "own" version this time and not the "other one"
I have done one years ago still have another one I think..
To me it still looks soft especially for the hefty price tag.
Sink holes in a breech no excuse for that.
sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2008 - 01:00 AM UTC
Coming along quite nicely.
Any ideas on decals?
Archer has a set I think they still make one I used great as the kit ones were well if I remember were like real thick and no amount of Future would cover them things up if I remember heck maybe there were no decals bad to get on in life.
Again looking good.
Yes the Carpet Monster will strike when you least expect it.
Ever go looking for a PE part that you think was in the rug only to find it glued to your arm
Any ideas on decals?
Archer has a set I think they still make one I used great as the kit ones were well if I remember were like real thick and no amount of Future would cover them things up
if I remember heck maybe there were no decals bad to get on in life.Again looking good.
Yes the Carpet Monster will strike when you least expect it.
Ever go looking for a PE part that you think was in the rug only to find it glued to your arm
t34-85
Joined: August 16, 2006
KitMaker: 232 posts
Armorama: 230 posts
Posted: Monday, March 03, 2008 - 08:24 PM UTC
Quoted Text
the "other one"
Aaaaah, now I finally get what the "other one" stood for... Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Quoted Text
Sink holes in a breech no excuse for that.
My copy looks OK. I got it from HobbyTerra.com
alanmac
Joined: February 25, 2007
KitMaker: 3,033 posts
Armorama: 2,953 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 - 02:48 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Maybe Dragon will jump on board with their "own" version this time and not the "other one".
[/quote]To me it still looks soft especially for the hefty price tag.
Sink holes in a breech no excuse for that.
[/quote]Well why does it have to be Dragon ?although I think this one looks fine to me. Sounding a wee bit like sour grapes and a Dragon Fanboy there Jeff
Plenty of other companies capable of producing great kits these days. You could say let Tamiya do it, the fit would be spot on, go together very easily, well engineered with clear and easy to follow instructions, know what I mean
Don't get me wrong, nothing against Dragon, they've moved forward as a company in their models and what they offer tremendously but they are not the only producer, so I find comments like "wish Dragon would do it " or "I'll wait till Dragon bring out a version" a bit of a joke.
I don't know about hefty price tag comment either , where are you getting that from because from what I've seen (with the crew included) I think its a good price.
I'm sure you are not but it's coming across to me that you just don't like it because Miniart have brought this out and they have been getting some favourable press of late.
Never seen anybody kicking up about quality etc. on the tanks they released based on this chassis. As t34-85 points out his is fine as regards sink marks.
Steve Zagola has one of these on the workbench so lets see what he makes of it.
Looking forward to seeing how yours turns out as well of course Keith.
Alan
Drader
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 - 03:02 AM UTC
Now that I've managed to prise the lid off the box, mine has sink marks on the breech too. As for price it was only just over twice what Dragon are asking for their naff 8th Army set, so not expensive at all.
David
David
t34-85
Joined: August 16, 2006
KitMaker: 232 posts
Armorama: 230 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 - 08:56 PM UTC
Quoted Text
mine has sink marks on the breech too
My copy only has a small dimple on the breech, I won't even need putty (let alone gap-filling CA), Mr.Surfacer 500 will do. It must have been one of the first kits to reach US shores, as I ordered it directly from the Ukraine (hobbyterra.com) and got it only a few days after they officially announced it. Maybe the early production is molded better...
jimbrae
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 - 09:48 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Plenty of other companies capable of producing great kits these days. You could say let Tamiya do it, the fit would be spot on, go together very easily, well engineered with clear and easy to follow instructions, know what I mean
Don't get me wrong, nothing against Dragon, they've moved forward as a company in their models and what they offer tremendously but they are not the only producer, so I find comments like "wish Dragon would do it " or "I'll wait till Dragon bring out a version" a bit of a joke.
I couldn't agree more - I also have an allergy to these comments.
Let's put it into purely technical terms - DML, with many of their releases in the last year or two have done amazing work with the PzIV, Tiger and Panther (amongst others) they are, IMO, happier and better when they're doing more 'refined' subjects which were built to a higher level of tolerance. In other words, (and shoot me down if you will
) i'm damned glad that Trumpeter did the KV series and NOT DML. For years, DML could have done the SU76, they could have done the Churchill or they could have reworked their IS-II - they didn't. Other companies with a different way of looking at the market have shown a supreme level of both imagination and technical ability.
MiniArt (compared to Tamiya or DML) is a small company. They have to tailor their releases to get as much out of the moulds as possible - that's why their vehicle releases will continue to be produced in both German and Soviet versions (where appropriate).
So, before we go into the 'Why didn't DML Release it?' argument, they had the chance they chose not to - others are showing a hell of a lot more imagination...
KAYELL
Joined: February 16, 2008
KitMaker: 107 posts
Armorama: 81 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2008 - 09:59 AM UTC
Erm...back to the plastic boys!
Primed, ready for the green at the weekend......... or should I leave it as a night fighting version?
Primed, ready for the green at the weekend......... or should I leave it as a night fighting version?
beefy66
Joined: October 22, 2007
KitMaker: 971 posts
Armorama: 280 posts
Posted: Friday, March 07, 2008 - 08:44 AM UTC
I think a Knightrider version or even a GUGGI with gold trim version might get the vote.After all it,s what your building now that counts and after seeing your fast array of other ruskis I,m sure it will be a great build. Bet yu can,t get it finnished for this thursday at MODELCLUB go on get the airbrush out.
sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 08, 2008 - 02:04 AM UTC
Quoted Text
To me it still looks soft especially for the hefty price tag.Quoted TextMaybe Dragon will jump on board with their "own" version this time and not the "other one".
Sink holes in a breech no excuse for that.
[/quote]Well why does it have to be Dragon ?although I think this one looks fine to me. Sounding a wee bit like sour grapes and a Dragon Fanboy there Jeff
Plenty of other companies capable of producing great kits these days. You could say let Tamiya do it, the fit would be spot on, go together very easily, well engineered with clear and easy to follow instructions, know what I mean
Don't get me wrong, nothing against Dragon, they've moved forward as a company in their models and what they offer tremendously but they are not the only producer, so I find comments like "wish Dragon would do it " or "I'll wait till Dragon bring out a version" a bit of a joke.
I don't know about hefty price tag comment either , where are you getting that from because from what I've seen (with the crew included) I think its a good price.
I'm sure you are not but it's coming across to me that you just don't like it because Miniart have brought this out and they have been getting some favourable press of late.
Never seen anybody kicking up about quality etc. on the tanks they released based on this chassis. As t34-85 points out his is fine as regards sink marks.
Steve Zagola has one of these on the workbench so lets see what he makes of it.
Looking forward to seeing how yours turns out as well of course Keith.
Alan
[/quote]
Okay I deserved that nothing like a free opinion.
Glad to hear that some will stand up for what they feel is right.
Okay how about AFV club think they would do one.
Now after getting hit with the Cobra Sherman I am a little ticked at them anyway.
But at least I did not take the bait and buy that Stadtgas Marder III
I do agree that Tamiya would be a kicker kit and plus the stuff would fit great.
After seeing the final product I might just buy one Before the PE sets are out.
Have nothing against Miniart at all.
Now Steve would make a box of plastic parts look great,even if not from the same kit.
sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 08, 2008 - 02:15 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextPlenty of other companies capable of producing great kits these days. You could say let Tamiya do it, the fit would be spot on, go together very easily, well engineered with clear and easy to follow instructions, know what I mean
Don't get me wrong, nothing against Dragon, they've moved forward as a company in their models and what they offer tremendously but they are not the only producer, so I find comments like "wish Dragon would do it " or "I'll wait till Dragon bring out a version" a bit of a joke.
I couldn't agree more - I also have an allergy to these comments.
Let's put it into purely technical terms - DML, with many of their releases in the last year or two have done amazing work with the PzIV, Tiger and Panther (amongst others) they are, IMO, happier and better when they're doing more 'refined' subjects which were built to a higher level of tolerance. In other words, (and shoot me down if you will
For years, DML could have done the SU76, they could have done the Churchill or they could have reworked their IS-II - they didn't. Other companies with a different way of looking at the market have shown a supreme level of both imagination and technical ability.
MiniArt (compared to Tamiya or DML) is a small company. They have to tailor their releases to get as much out of the moulds as possible - that's why their vehicle releases will continue to be produced in both German and Soviet versions (where appropriate).
So, before we go into the 'Why didn't DML Release it?' argument, they had the chance they chose not to - others are showing a hell of a lot more imagination...
Well I think this deserved an answer yes more Imagination is good but that IR light and half track were good ideas also but have not seen many people build one yet.
To bad for AFV club on that one.
Now lets talk where is the Darn 203 MM Russian tractor gun at?????
Forgot Keith that Kit came out good.
Overall looks the part.
So which unit?
Archer or kit supplied decals?
Are they good?
Thanks.
Back to the plastic.
footsie
Joined: May 13, 2007
KitMaker: 305 posts
Armorama: 168 posts
Posted: Monday, March 10, 2008 - 01:27 PM UTC
were all su 76,s painted green ?, i,m sure i have seen some in 2 and 3 color cam. but thats not including german vehicles, looks like a good build so far .
KAYELL
Joined: February 16, 2008
KitMaker: 107 posts
Armorama: 81 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 01:07 AM UTC
Hi Guys,
Finally finished,,,,build was OOB apart from added tarpaulin, replaced tow cable and a couple of tie straps.
I eventually enjoyed making the kit, achieved a fairly good end result.
There is a full kit review on the Perth Modelling Site which saves me fromrepeating what these boys 'down under ' think.
I am so glad that this vehicle is again out in plastic, as it was one of the most numerous soviet vehicles after the T34.
Finally finished,,,,build was OOB apart from added tarpaulin, replaced tow cable and a couple of tie straps.
I eventually enjoyed making the kit, achieved a fairly good end result.
There is a full kit review on the Perth Modelling Site which saves me fromrepeating what these boys 'down under ' think.
I am so glad that this vehicle is again out in plastic, as it was one of the most numerous soviet vehicles after the T34.
GVoakes
Joined: September 04, 2007
KitMaker: 193 posts
Armorama: 132 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 01:24 AM UTC
Very nice looking SU-76, Keith.
Despite all the discussion around the suspension, i looks like it builds up into a real nice kit.
Despite all the discussion around the suspension, i looks like it builds up into a real nice kit.
sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 01:46 AM UTC
Great Job on the kit.
Came out great.
Great weathering and painting.
Came out great.
Great weathering and painting.
 |
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.