Hosted by Darren Baker
M51
Bear432
United States
Joined: April 11, 2012
KitMaker: 29 posts
Armorama: 23 posts
Joined: April 11, 2012
KitMaker: 29 posts
Armorama: 23 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 - 03:38 PM UTC
I have a question and hope someone with more knowledge can answer it. I have both kits, Tamiya IDF M51 and Dragon IDF M51. Is one better than the other for accuracy? I think I read someone where that they represented different batches of the tank. Thanks for answering my question. Dan
didgeboy
Washington, United States
Joined: September 21, 2010
KitMaker: 1,846 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Joined: September 21, 2010
KitMaker: 1,846 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 - 04:43 PM UTC
Dan
A few issues back AFV Modeller did a side by side comparison of the dragon and the new Tamiya kits, very informative and highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of each. Check it out online you can download the individual article too. Cheers.
A few issues back AFV Modeller did a side by side comparison of the dragon and the new Tamiya kits, very informative and highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of each. Check it out online you can download the individual article too. Cheers.
rfbaer
Texas, United States
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 06, 2012 - 06:20 AM UTC
The Tamiya kit is appropriate for '67 and thereabouts, Dragon's later and Academy's kit is almost the last variant, more or less and if I recall correctly.
For what it is, the Tamiya kit is darn near spot-on. I have one in the box, next on the build list and am anxious to get going on it. As mentioned AFV Modeler and a couple of others have all run build articles on it, from OOB to moderate tweaks.
For what it is, the Tamiya kit is darn near spot-on. I have one in the box, next on the build list and am anxious to get going on it. As mentioned AFV Modeler and a couple of others have all run build articles on it, from OOB to moderate tweaks.
tgannon
United States
Joined: August 14, 2008
KitMaker: 60 posts
Armorama: 59 posts
Joined: August 14, 2008
KitMaker: 60 posts
Armorama: 59 posts
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2013 - 11:44 AM UTC
The short version is that the Academy kit is hardly worth considering, given its many issues.
Dragon is also troublesome, but not quite as bad. The turret is the least desirable part, but the truly Israeli parts are useful. Frankly, I'd adapt them to another kit, even other Dragon items, such as the Cobra M4A1 and M4A3 versions.
The Tamiya kit is the best. OOB for '67. Easily converted to '73 and beyond using either Accurate Armour or Legends sets. One can even use Dragon parts. Tamiya's turret and muzzle brake are great! The rest is perfect for M50s as well.
Tom
Dragon is also troublesome, but not quite as bad. The turret is the least desirable part, but the truly Israeli parts are useful. Frankly, I'd adapt them to another kit, even other Dragon items, such as the Cobra M4A1 and M4A3 versions.
The Tamiya kit is the best. OOB for '67. Easily converted to '73 and beyond using either Accurate Armour or Legends sets. One can even use Dragon parts. Tamiya's turret and muzzle brake are great! The rest is perfect for M50s as well.
Tom
rfbaer
Texas, United States
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 - 06:07 AM UTC
Mr. Gannon, I have just about worn out your Israeli Sherman book. Marvelous work, sir.
tgannon
United States
Joined: August 14, 2008
KitMaker: 60 posts
Armorama: 59 posts
Joined: August 14, 2008
KitMaker: 60 posts
Armorama: 59 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 03:43 AM UTC
Thank you! It was my first attempt at writing. Glad you like it. There just may be more to come shortly.
Tom
Tom
bigmal
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: February 21, 2011
KitMaker: 211 posts
Armorama: 176 posts
Joined: February 21, 2011
KitMaker: 211 posts
Armorama: 176 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 04:50 AM UTC
I would like to jump in with a question if I may.
I have on my shelf a part built M51 kit as provided by Verlinden.
It is a full resin kit that I bought many, many years ago (it cost me £50) and after struggling with one suspension unit that took ages to clean up and assemble and the turret which wasn`t too bad to build, it went back on the shelf.
Apart from a short stay at a friends whom I gave it to (he gave it back), it`s been there ever since.
Now then, I `m not one to waste stuff, so I would like to get it finished.
Can any one tell me what version it represents?
It has HVSS, the up-rated engine decks etc.
I ask as I would like to get the colour and markings right.
Thanks in advance.
Malc.
I have on my shelf a part built M51 kit as provided by Verlinden.
It is a full resin kit that I bought many, many years ago (it cost me £50) and after struggling with one suspension unit that took ages to clean up and assemble and the turret which wasn`t too bad to build, it went back on the shelf.
Apart from a short stay at a friends whom I gave it to (he gave it back), it`s been there ever since.
Now then, I `m not one to waste stuff, so I would like to get it finished.
Can any one tell me what version it represents?
It has HVSS, the up-rated engine decks etc.
I ask as I would like to get the colour and markings right.
Thanks in advance.
Malc.
armouredcharmer
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 09, 2009
KitMaker: 670 posts
Armorama: 410 posts
Joined: June 09, 2009
KitMaker: 670 posts
Armorama: 410 posts
Posted: Friday, March 08, 2013 - 06:32 PM UTC
In defence of Academy`s kit i did`nt find it half bad - to get my 67 version i scratchbuilt/kitbashed the rear deck and back hull using some line drawings i found on this site for guidence.For the the price of the base kit and some Evergreen Plastic card i was very pleased with the result.
rfbaer
Texas, United States
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 09, 2013 - 07:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Thank you! It was my first attempt at writing. Glad you like it. There just may be more to come shortly.
Tom
Consider one copy sold.
Also in defense of the Acad kit, the suspension/running gear is pretty good for use in conversions, and they're getting dang cheap. Now if the tracks didn't have the same flexibility as a steel ruler......
tgannon
United States
Joined: August 14, 2008
KitMaker: 60 posts
Armorama: 59 posts
Joined: August 14, 2008
KitMaker: 60 posts
Armorama: 59 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - 11:08 AM UTC
The Academy kit has a decent suspension, although the tracks have the wrong shape on the top of the guide-horns. Other issues have to do with the orange-peel cast texture, way too pronounced, muzzle brake that is too wide and inaccurate in shape, engine deck with incorrectly sized louvres, etc. It is cheaper, but a lot of work to make it look decent. A 1967 era deck is a good choice, as it makes the correction process a little easier. I'd replace or cut down the fenders (too wide) and replace the jerricans. A good way to go is to simply use an Italeri upper hull and add your own fenders. A Tamiya welded hull would work nicely also. Just some random thoughts.
Tom
Tom
rfbaer
Texas, United States
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - 12:02 PM UTC
That muzzle brake is tough. I have an Acad kit, built years ago, that I d/a'ed for parts a couple of weeks ago and I was thinking it might be interesting to do an M51 on a welded hull, but dang, that muzzle brake is huge when compared to the Tamiya part. So I'm thinking I'll just use the suspension and lower hull for something else, maybe an M50 on a welded hull, using the MP Models kit I have in the stash.
Question for Mr.G: Would an early Cummins engine deck be appropriate, as in the Tamiya kit?
Question for Mr.G: Would an early Cummins engine deck be appropriate, as in the Tamiya kit?
tgannon
United States
Joined: August 14, 2008
KitMaker: 60 posts
Armorama: 59 posts
Joined: August 14, 2008
KitMaker: 60 posts
Armorama: 59 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 - 05:53 AM UTC
I just happen to be building a kit-bashed M50 myself:
1-Tasca M4A2 w/ early cast hood for upper hull
2-Tasca M4A3 lower hull and Tasca HVSS suspension/ track
3-1967 era deck from the Tamiya kit
4-Tasca turret, with front/ rear extensions cut from an MP Models turret. Added loader's hatch and simulated a retro-fitted pistol port cut from another turret.
5-Barrel Depot gun barrel
6-lots of other stuff.
Tamiya deck is definitely appropriate.
Tom
1-Tasca M4A2 w/ early cast hood for upper hull
2-Tasca M4A3 lower hull and Tasca HVSS suspension/ track
3-1967 era deck from the Tamiya kit
4-Tasca turret, with front/ rear extensions cut from an MP Models turret. Added loader's hatch and simulated a retro-fitted pistol port cut from another turret.
5-Barrel Depot gun barrel
6-lots of other stuff.
Tamiya deck is definitely appropriate.
Tom
rfbaer
Texas, United States
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 - 10:58 AM UTC
You "were" MP Models, correct?
I have (I think) the MP M4/M4A3 cast hood top hull, Acad lower hull, and the MP M50 kit. I'd have to scratch the engine deck, but that shouldn't be a problem.
Refresh my memory if you would; was an M50 on a 47 degree M4A3 hull done? I seem to remember pics of same in your book, but not sure......
I have (I think) the MP M4/M4A3 cast hood top hull, Acad lower hull, and the MP M50 kit. I'd have to scratch the engine deck, but that shouldn't be a problem.
Refresh my memory if you would; was an M50 on a 47 degree M4A3 hull done? I seem to remember pics of same in your book, but not sure......
tgannon
United States
Joined: August 14, 2008
KitMaker: 60 posts
Armorama: 59 posts
Joined: August 14, 2008
KitMaker: 60 posts
Armorama: 59 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 17, 2013 - 11:44 AM UTC
Yes, I was 1/2 of MP Models, with Bill Miley of Chesapeake Model Designs.
As for the M50, it was converted from every major hull type, except the M4A6. You can definitely do one based on the 47 degree welded hull, M4, M4A2 or M4A3. To confirm, there is the M4 (105)-based M50 at Latrun (in the book), an M4A2 (W)-based M50 bunker vehicle on the beach just south of Rosh Hanikra, near the Lebanon border (in the book) and an MAR290 rocket launcher converted from an M4A3(W)-based M50 at Beit Hatotchan, near Zichron Ya'akov.
Enjoy the build!
Tom
As for the M50, it was converted from every major hull type, except the M4A6. You can definitely do one based on the 47 degree welded hull, M4, M4A2 or M4A3. To confirm, there is the M4 (105)-based M50 at Latrun (in the book), an M4A2 (W)-based M50 bunker vehicle on the beach just south of Rosh Hanikra, near the Lebanon border (in the book) and an MAR290 rocket launcher converted from an M4A3(W)-based M50 at Beit Hatotchan, near Zichron Ya'akov.
Enjoy the build!
Tom
rfbaer
Texas, United States
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Posted: Monday, March 18, 2013 - 10:32 AM UTC
Thanks! As soon as I finish the Tamiya M51 I'm winding up, I'm going to get going on it. I have a Dragon M4A3(105) that will probably be the base donor, but some MP hull conversions around as well. I'll start getting the parts together soon. Again, thanks.