Hello!!!!!
I'm planning tu buy the new Merkava IIID kit. Meng and Hobby Boss released the same model. I'm already saw both kits in the net, but I doesn't see a real comparision review yet. Has anyone in this community can give me some advise about what kit is better?? As far as I know both have pros and cons, but I want to know more about accuracy for example.
Hope someone can give some advise.
Regards..
Hosted by Darren Baker
Merkava IIID: Meng VS Hobby Boss
Panzerfan
Joined: May 31, 2002
KitMaker: 65 posts
Armorama: 62 posts
Posted: Friday, July 20, 2012 - 04:12 PM UTC
Removed by original poster on 07/21/12 - 08:28:42 (GMT).
Spiderfrommars
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 3,845 posts
Armorama: 3,543 posts
Posted: Friday, July 20, 2012 - 08:52 PM UTC
Here you can read a comparison
http://miniarmour.net/2012/05/19/the-tale-of-two-merkavas/#more-3080
People seem to prefere the Meng model
http://miniarmour.net/2012/07/15/the-tale-of-two-merkavas-survey-results/
Probably the lower hull issues of the Hobby boss product have made the difference.
Morover Mr. Mass, the IDF AFV guru, has provided technical assistance and reference photos for the Meng model, so although the kit doesn't have any PE frets included, it's likely to be the more accurate
Here you can read some exhaustive reviews
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/review/7897
http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/hobbyboss/hb82441.html
I've chosen the Meng one, and I'd say that it looks incredibly good
Cheers
http://miniarmour.net/2012/05/19/the-tale-of-two-merkavas/#more-3080
People seem to prefere the Meng model
http://miniarmour.net/2012/07/15/the-tale-of-two-merkavas-survey-results/
Probably the lower hull issues of the Hobby boss product have made the difference.
Morover Mr. Mass, the IDF AFV guru, has provided technical assistance and reference photos for the Meng model, so although the kit doesn't have any PE frets included, it's likely to be the more accurate
Here you can read some exhaustive reviews
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/review/7897
http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/hobbyboss/hb82441.html
I've chosen the Meng one, and I'd say that it looks incredibly good
Cheers
system
Joined: November 24, 2008
KitMaker: 364 posts
Armorama: 363 posts
Posted: Friday, July 20, 2012 - 09:22 PM UTC
I've always loved the look of the Merkava 3D so I remortgaged my house and bought both kits.
I'm really please with both, but the short answer is the Meng kit is better. Looking over the PMMS previews will give you a pretty good idea of what's in the box. Accuracy-wise, both kits look to do a good job comparing them to the Desert Eagle and Tankograd books and online references.
My only specific observation around the Meng kit is that it comes with an earlier style of 'rounded' hull nose casting which looks to be rarer - but not unknown - on Merkava 3Ds. Otherwise everything looks spot-on. So not really an accuracy issue.
The HobbyBoss kit is very nice but does have a few small problems - nowhere near as many as their Merkava 4 though. Ones I spotted were:
- rear hull stowage baskets are a mix of Merkava 3 and Merkava 4 patterns
- questionable tool stowage on the upper rear hull
- infantry telephone box has inaccurate shape
- turret stowage basket interior detail is inaccurate (fuel can holder) or missing (however, you can just cover all this up with the nicely-molded cover).
These are all pretty easy fixes though and the HB kit does have a lot of great details.
I'm really please with both, but the short answer is the Meng kit is better. Looking over the PMMS previews will give you a pretty good idea of what's in the box. Accuracy-wise, both kits look to do a good job comparing them to the Desert Eagle and Tankograd books and online references.
My only specific observation around the Meng kit is that it comes with an earlier style of 'rounded' hull nose casting which looks to be rarer - but not unknown - on Merkava 3Ds. Otherwise everything looks spot-on. So not really an accuracy issue.
The HobbyBoss kit is very nice but does have a few small problems - nowhere near as many as their Merkava 4 though. Ones I spotted were:
- rear hull stowage baskets are a mix of Merkava 3 and Merkava 4 patterns
- questionable tool stowage on the upper rear hull
- infantry telephone box has inaccurate shape
- turret stowage basket interior detail is inaccurate (fuel can holder) or missing (however, you can just cover all this up with the nicely-molded cover).
These are all pretty easy fixes though and the HB kit does have a lot of great details.
Shovelhanded63
Joined: June 30, 2012
KitMaker: 108 posts
Armorama: 95 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 06:02 PM UTC
I'm on the last stage of building the Meng mk.3.It is a beautiful kit.I can't compare it to the Hobby boss kit,as I have yet to see it.The only real issue was the hull top being badly warped on mine.(I was told that it was due to the thinness of the plastic)Another builder said his was flawless.So it's six one way,half a dozen the other.I also read that the turret was a bit tricky on the Meng,but it went together for me with a bit of fiddling.The detail is great,so other that needing a PE fret for like the rifle racks,and maybe brass B&C,it's a good un.
Regards,Bill
Regards,Bill
Shovelhanded63
Joined: June 30, 2012
KitMaker: 108 posts
Armorama: 95 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 06:19 PM UTC
I just read Mauro's first link:tale of 2 Merkava's.From that,it is said the Hobby boss kit has a major inaccuracy issue with the front of the lower hull(near impossible to fix)I built their Mk.4,and other than the suspension issue,it built up into a pretty nice kit.
system
Joined: November 24, 2008
KitMaker: 364 posts
Armorama: 363 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 10:12 PM UTC
I missed the issue with the front lower hull, but checking just now it looks like the review is right - the HB kit definitely has some problems there. Not sure that they'll be too noticeable on the finished build, but annoying all the same.
Have to disagree with you about the HB Merkava 4 though. Apart from the staggered suspension problem, it looked to me to have a bunch of other issues - most serious of all is that if you look at it in profile the whole tank just appears 'squashed' - it sits too low on its tracks, the turret is too low, wheel positions are suspect. There are a bunch of detail issues too, like the mantlet 50cal mount. It still builds up into a nice-looking model, but accuracy isn't great.
What I find odd is that a lot of modellers say the HB Merkava 4 is way better then the Academy Merkava 4 - maybe because the box comes with so many goodies - but it seems to me that Academy did their homework much better than HB.
But I digress - this is a Merkava 3 discussion...
Have to disagree with you about the HB Merkava 4 though. Apart from the staggered suspension problem, it looked to me to have a bunch of other issues - most serious of all is that if you look at it in profile the whole tank just appears 'squashed' - it sits too low on its tracks, the turret is too low, wheel positions are suspect. There are a bunch of detail issues too, like the mantlet 50cal mount. It still builds up into a nice-looking model, but accuracy isn't great.
What I find odd is that a lot of modellers say the HB Merkava 4 is way better then the Academy Merkava 4 - maybe because the box comes with so many goodies - but it seems to me that Academy did their homework much better than HB.
But I digress - this is a Merkava 3 discussion...
Spiderfrommars
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 3,845 posts
Armorama: 3,543 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 05:59 AM UTC
Someone has found a solution to fix the Hobbyboss Mk IV lower hull
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/171668&page=1
http://www.idf-modelling.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2526
It can work also for the MK IIID lower hull
The best choice might probably be a kit bashing between both them, for example using the Meng hull and turret and keeping the Hobbyboss Pe parts. That would be maybe too much expensive anyway
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/171668&page=1
http://www.idf-modelling.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2526
It can work also for the MK IIID lower hull
The best choice might probably be a kit bashing between both them, for example using the Meng hull and turret and keeping the Hobbyboss Pe parts. That would be maybe too much expensive anyway
system
Joined: November 24, 2008
KitMaker: 364 posts
Armorama: 363 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 08:33 AM UTC
Yes, I think the first link would fix the HB Merkava 4 suspension position issues, although I think you'd still need to lower the suspension arms to correct the ride height.
The HB Merkava 3D issue is a little different - it's the angles of the lower nose plate. Probably not hard to fix.
But I have to wonder, why bother with either when there are alternative kits free of these problems? The Meng Merkava 3D is lovely and there'll doubtless be loads of aftermarket for those who want to detail it; the Academy Merkava 4 is a solid kit which is lacking in detail in one or two places but overall looks pretty accurate. Personally I'd rather do a bit of light detailing than have to break out the razor saw on a brand-new kit
The HB Merkava 3D issue is a little different - it's the angles of the lower nose plate. Probably not hard to fix.
But I have to wonder, why bother with either when there are alternative kits free of these problems? The Meng Merkava 3D is lovely and there'll doubtless be loads of aftermarket for those who want to detail it; the Academy Merkava 4 is a solid kit which is lacking in detail in one or two places but overall looks pretty accurate. Personally I'd rather do a bit of light detailing than have to break out the razor saw on a brand-new kit
Spiderfrommars
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 3,845 posts
Armorama: 3,543 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 10:23 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Yes, I think the first link would fix the HB Merkava 4 suspension position issues, although I think you'd still need to lower the suspension arms to correct the ride height.
The HB Merkava 3D issue is a little different - it's the angles of the lower nose plate. Probably not hard to fix.
But I have to wonder, why bother with either when there are alternative kits free of these problems? The Meng Merkava 3D is lovely and there'll doubtless be loads of aftermarket for those who want to detail it; the Academy Merkava 4 is a solid kit which is lacking in detail in one or two places but overall looks pretty accurate. Personally I'd rather do a bit of light detailing than have to break out the razor saw on a brand-new kit
Yes Ed, of course as it's quite predictable,if it was made an extra PE set for Meng model (...Voyager guys where are you?), the kit bashing solution would be a nonsense indeed. Anyway probably some guys have already bought both.
However,considering the reference availabilty and how are expensive the kits, the Hobbyboss mistakes are really UPSETTING!...You can perform that surgery to correct the MK 4 lower hull, but that might be quite accettable for an old dog kit which depicts a rare subject...It isn't for a brand new model which costs a lot and reproduces a Merkava!
USP45C
Joined: July 16, 2012
KitMaker: 20 posts
Armorama: 19 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 04:08 PM UTC
Meng lower hull is too narrow and angles are wrong.
Spiderfrommars
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 3,845 posts
Armorama: 3,543 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 04:24 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Meng lower hull is too narrow and angles are wrong.
Hi Florencio,I'd like to know what are the references that prove this statement
It seems to me quite strange that Mr Mass could "sign and warrant" a kit whit that kind of flaws...
cheers
Spiderfrommars
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 3,845 posts
Armorama: 3,543 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 08:45 PM UTC
Extra sets went out
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/news/12095
As usual they look impressive...and I imagine that as usual they are likely to be quite expensive
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/news/12095
As usual they look impressive...and I imagine that as usual they are likely to be quite expensive
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 08:42 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextMeng lower hull is too narrow and angles are wrong.
Hi Florencio,I'd like to know what are the references that prove this statement
It seems to me quite strange that Mr Mass could "sign and warrant" a kit whit that kind of flaws...
cheers
This is at least the third forum Florencio has posted this on, and while he is welcome to his opinion I happen to disagree. He's basing this observation on his "Mk. 1 eyeballs" and comparing the kit with the Tamiya Merkava Mk 1 (which by the way, is now quite old and was originally set up to be motorized on top of that). So Florencio if it bothers you that much I'll be happy to take the kit off your hands.
Cheers,
Mike
afv_rob
Joined: October 09, 2005
KitMaker: 2,556 posts
Armorama: 2,199 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 09:56 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextMeng lower hull is too narrow and angles are wrong.
Hi Florencio,I'd like to know what are the references that prove this statement
It seems to me quite strange that Mr Mass could "sign and warrant" a kit whit that kind of flaws...
cheers
This is at least the third forum Florencio has posted this on, and while he is welcome to his opinion I happen to disagree. He's basing this observation on his "Mk. 1 eyeballs" and comparing the kit with the Tamiya Merkava Mk 1 (which by the way, is now quite old and was originally set up to be motorized on top of that). So Florencio if it bothers you that much I'll be happy to take the kit off your hands.
Cheers,
Mike
I thought though someone did point out though that the edge of the lower hull runs right through the centre of the drivers hatch on the upper hull!? Something must be up there....
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 10:13 AM UTC
Rob, every Merkava model out there is the same way (I have them all and checked 
). I would hazard a guess that on the real thing, above the running gear the hull sides angle out and then up to the deck. None of the kits out have sponson bottoms so they just go all the way up to the underside of the upper hull.
Mike
). I would hazard a guess that on the real thing, above the running gear the hull sides angle out and then up to the deck. None of the kits out have sponson bottoms so they just go all the way up to the underside of the upper hull.Mike
Spiderfrommars
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 3,845 posts
Armorama: 3,543 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 11:48 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextMeng lower hull is too narrow and angles are wrong.
Hi Florencio,I'd like to know what are the references that prove this statement
It seems to me quite strange that Mr Mass could "sign and warrant" a kit whit that kind of flaws...
cheers
This is at least the third forum Florencio has posted this on, and while he is welcome to his opinion I happen to disagree. He's basing this observation on his "Mk. 1 eyeballs" and comparing the kit with the Tamiya Merkava Mk 1 (which by the way, is now quite old and was originally set up to be motorized on top of that). So Florencio if it bothers you that much I'll be happy to take the kit off your hands.
Cheers,
Mike
Me too, I totally disagree with him.In my humble opinion "Eyeballs" hardly are a reliable source
USP45C
Joined: July 16, 2012
KitMaker: 20 posts
Armorama: 19 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 05:04 PM UTC
USP45C
Joined: July 16, 2012
KitMaker: 20 posts
Armorama: 19 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 05:08 PM UTC
FlorinM
Joined: August 01, 2011
KitMaker: 385 posts
Armorama: 211 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 05:30 PM UTC
Meng lower hull is indeed too narrow, the pictures speak for themselves: http://www.idf-modelling.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=3049&p=31048&hilit=meng+merkava+3D#p31048
Spiderfrommars
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 3,845 posts
Armorama: 3,543 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 08:35 PM UTC
I don't know if I've understood in the right way, anyway I've checked the model which I have in my stash.
Florencio, that gaps that you show in your pics are due to the wrong position of the pins. There is a too strict tollerance there. In my opinion to fix this problem, it would be enough cutting away the pins and then gluing together the lower and upper hull edges.
Hi Florin.
I've seen the pics. In my opinion that flaw is due to a model shortcut, it isn't a dimensional issue
Here a drawing that try to describe what I mean
I hope it's clear enough. In the actual tank the side doesn't touch the upper hull. In the model kit it would have been hard to reproduce that detail in the same way
Cheers
Florencio, that gaps that you show in your pics are due to the wrong position of the pins. There is a too strict tollerance there. In my opinion to fix this problem, it would be enough cutting away the pins and then gluing together the lower and upper hull edges.
Hi Florin.
I've seen the pics. In my opinion that flaw is due to a model shortcut, it isn't a dimensional issue
Here a drawing that try to describe what I mean
I hope it's clear enough. In the actual tank the side doesn't touch the upper hull. In the model kit it would have been hard to reproduce that detail in the same way
Cheers
FlorinM
Joined: August 01, 2011
KitMaker: 385 posts
Armorama: 211 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 09:31 PM UTC
Take a good look at the pictures one more time, my good man, the driver's seat, aligned with the central view port, won't fit on the kit... Viewing from back to front, the side wall is supposed to be to the left of the leftmost view port when it is to the right edge of it... That to me is a dimensional issue. Plus the turret being too wide...
On the thread whose link I've posted, Michael Mass himself admitted a few posts bellow the pictures: "With all respect, the model isn't my work. Meng's team did it. I was just supported them in a way. [...] As every other model, there weak and strong points. The hull sides may be a weak point[...]"
On the thread whose link I've posted, Michael Mass himself admitted a few posts bellow the pictures: "With all respect, the model isn't my work. Meng's team did it. I was just supported them in a way. [...] As every other model, there weak and strong points. The hull sides may be a weak point[...]"
Spiderfrommars
Joined: July 13, 2010
KitMaker: 3,845 posts
Armorama: 3,543 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 11:19 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Take a good look at the pictures one more time, my good man, the driver's seat, aligned with the central view port, won't fit on the kit... Viewing from back to front, the side wall is supposed to be to the left of the leftmost view port when it is to the right edge of it... That to me is a dimensional issue. Plus the turret being too wide...
On the thread whose link I've posted, Michael Mass himself admitted a few posts bellow the pictures: "With all respect, the model isn't my work. Meng's team did it. I was just supported them in a way. [...] As every other model, there weak and strong points. The hull sides may be a weak point[...]"
Yes, I've seen and I'd say that you're right. The only thing which is puzzling me is that it would be a huge dimensional flaw. I'd like to have the Mass's book to compare the kit with his drawings. Another thing that I can notice is that the lower hull width, corresponds to the room which is between the two fenders, so if as it seems noticeable,the lower hull were too narrow, that would be true also for upper hull. In your opinion, wouldn't it be possible that the hatch has been made in a wrong position (too close to the left side)?
Anyway, as read in the comments, it doesn't seem a so visible flaw as well as the turret dimensional mistake. All in all 2 mm in 35 scale are only 7cm in the actual size.
Thanks for spotting and for having done some precise references about
cheers
FlorinM
Joined: August 01, 2011
KitMaker: 385 posts
Armorama: 211 posts
Posted: Friday, July 27, 2012 - 12:15 AM UTC
I pray that the hatch is in the wrong position, as it would be an relatively easy fix. However, if the tub is too narrow, the dimensional issues would cascade to the suspension and tracks.
At a first glance the kit looks great, but it is not cheap, the Meng guys should have done their homework better...
At a first glance the kit looks great, but it is not cheap, the Meng guys should have done their homework better...
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Friday, July 27, 2012 - 12:28 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Take a good look at the pictures one more time, my good man, the driver's seat, aligned with the central view port, won't fit on the kit... Viewing from back to front, the side wall is supposed to be to the left of the leftmost view port when it is to the right edge of it... That to me is a dimensional issue. Plus the turret being too wide...
On the thread whose link I've posted, Michael Mass himself admitted a few posts bellow the pictures: "With all respect, the model isn't my work. Meng's team did it. I was just supported them in a way. [...] As every other model, there weak and strong points. The hull sides may be a weak point[...]"
You neglected to post the whole quote from Michael:
Quoted Text
As every other model, there weak and strong points. The hull sides may be a weak point but it is structural in my eyes.
best regards
Michael
I take those last few words to mean that he thinks the hull structure has to do with the molding of the model. Whatever,
is the model perfect? No I haven't seen one of those yet, but this one is pretty darn good! As I said before, if it bothers you guys so much I'll be happy to take your kits off of your hands.Regards,
Mike
 |
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.