Man, that looks awesome, Dylan. I can't wait to get one of those, too!

Chris

Coming along nicely. Looks like a superb kit.

Wow! Meng has major mistake with suspension. Where are flat springs?




What's more?

Looks like a nice kit, I'm surprised they missed obvious stuff like... suspension!

Anyway looks like it'll build into a nice subject. I had this on my Christmas list, but the elves tell me they couldn't get one in time.

What are you planning for the paint?

Andy

great job for this french tank !
thanks for the pics...

Man Meng seems to be really stepping on themselves lately with their new releases...first the Leopard 1 and now this!

I'm going go with a simplification of the model vs missing the detail on the kit, they do provide the side skirts that cover the wheels, which would make the Springs invisible.

Missed those springs, eh?

Major bummer!

A quick search of the Web reveals that some of these 2C did have those little "schurzen" along the bottom - hiding the MIA springs - so at least there are a couple of historically-valid examples to model. I AM assuming that this Meng kit does provide those flaps, yes? But several individual 2C appear to have been "captured" in photos only without flaps, so these may not be accessible for accuracy-minded folks exploring paint-scheme options.

All in all, while a very interesting subject, it's a not-very-good reflection on Meng to have simply missed these visible structural / functional details - considering that other companies have gone ahead and provided suspension bits that one never gets to see (Dragon Pz III torsion bars, Christie cranks and springs in Bronco Mk. IV kits, etc.).

Now that this sorry error-cat is out of the bag... what about what IS visible? How is all that stuff? Is this kit still worth getting (given the need to have flaps on "or else"), or has Meng coughed the uppers, too?

Bob

Some things to consider: Are there any other pictures available showing the suspension detail this well except this one posted here? How much you will see after assembly of the skirts? How much would the kit cost more if replicated? Who is the target group?

Thomas

The suspension is actually quite visible in many pics of Char 2C where those skirts are missing, and probably the majority of pics one can find with a quick Web search show the 2C "ohne-schurzen"... so the lack of this detail is simply crippling and very limiting to the 2C modeler.

I can in no way endorse or even accept as a viable rationale the notion that these "are but minor details and it would cost more to include them" - again, many other plastic kit companies routinely include all sorts of stuff (suspension elements, insides of hatches you'll likely leave closed owing to lack of other interior, various amounts of interior which many may not want to do, etc.) and it does not appear to raise the cost of the kits much, if any, over similar kits without those elements.

The lack of springs is all the more perplexing to me, as Meng did catch and well-represent the rather odd use of larger and smaller road-wheels in an alternating "caterpillar series" - a rather subtle feature that many may well not have missed were it skipped! So, seems to me that they were pretty detail-oriented at least while doing up wheel molds!

IF Meng includes the skirts, they MAY be targeting those who wish to do only certain 2C (those known from pics with skirts). This would be rather artificially constricting or constraining, as including the MIA springs would allow either skirted or skirtless builds. Any other aspect of potential target audience... I cannot guess!

I'll probably still get one of these (grumble), as it is cool and very different from almost all else available, but I would be much more eager to get one were it complete!

Bob

On the kit is the part that the wheels attach to separate from the bottom of the hull?
Either way seems like an opportunity for someone with a 3d printer to make a master and make a few pennies with a corrective replacement.

If you check out the first few pics on the thread you'll see the layout. With the way the wheel mounts are designed there's no room for the springs to be fitted. The best you could get away with, without some major scratch work, is creating the illusion of the springs with paint.

This is indeed distressing news, especially considering the price of the kit.

To bad they missed the leaf springs . Not a real deal breaker though , should be able to make some from Evergreen plastic strip . Just getting all ten sets identical will be the tricky part . Make one and the cast the rest maybe ? Or if that fails , just build one with the wheel skirts.

Jim, you missed the point of my last post. With the way the model is designed, even if you make the springs, there's no where to put them without a lot of scratch work.

Weellll, a modest amount of scratch work. You make one set of springs, cast up enough to do the job and then cut down the simple rails in the kit. Not too hard. Just get the master nailed and the rest is pretty straightforward.

Paul

I guess I would cut out the area behind where the springs are , add leaf springs and then fake the boggie that holds the road wheels . Or make up leaf springs , say 3 mm in width to glue to the side of the wheel supports , a little dry brushing and some dirt , you won't really notice that they are fakes .Did a lot of this kind of thing all the time in the 70s and 80s . Shouldn't have to today but I guess on this kit that's the way it goes Unless your putting it into a judged competition , who's gonna know ? Lots of great builders and painters hang at my LHS but they all have different specialties , if I scratch some stuff on most WW2 tank kits I have to tell them what I did and why . They do the same for me with their wingy things and ships .

It does seem odd that they omitted the leaf spring detail, along with the mounting bracket tabs being misshapen. Is it possible that the omission was an issue of structural integrity that they weren't able to fully address? The kit does look heavy.

Nice job on a fascinating tank but Dylan does it really matter if you're images are up on another site? It's not like you've created your own artwork and people are copying it.

It's a model kit that anyone can buy.

It may not matter to you, (or me, for that matter) but if they are Dylan's photos, even if of a publicly available subject. His photos belong to him and he is within his rights to ask that his photos not be cross posted unless that violates site policies (haven't looked that up).

People's rights are their rights and what matters to them doesn't have to be the same as what matters to others. We should respect those rights and people's requests regarding them.

Paul

[Quote]It may not matter to you, (or me, for that matter) but if they are Dylan's photos, even if of a publicly available subject. His photos belong to him and he is within his rights to ask that his photos not be cross posted unless that violates site policies (haven't looked that up).

People's rights are their rights and what matters to them doesn't have to be the same as what matters to others. We should respect those rights and people's requests regarding them.

Paul[quote]

Paul; I fundamentally agree with you - people's rights are their rights, and what matters to them... all GOOD.

BUT: I think having "rights" involves being responsible and NOT "setting up others" so that one may belatedly "announce and stand upon" them. You have rights. However, UNLESS you state or claim them up front, you, and others, are left in the less-good and less-tenable position of ASSUMING that the others KNOW your rights. Assumption leads to others maybe doing things YOU think "tread upon your rights". To leave something "important to YOU" up for un-witting assumption by others is to set both parties up for potential conflict. Posting a pic and later saying you don't want others to use it is a case in point.


I don't want to step on any toes, here, but...

So far as I (more or less and incompletely) understand it, ANY picture posted on the Web in any public-access site - and NOT copy-protected (there are sites where pics can be viewed but viewers cannot effectively copy and paste them elsewhere as they are apparently copy-protected) and NOT copy-righted by the hosting site OR the initial poster, may be copied and used by others.

IMHO, It is NOT appropriate to take these accessible pictures and re-post them elsewhere AND falsely claim "ownership" of them. THAT would be theft of "intellectual property" and quite dishonest.

Fair-minded and respective people will (re)post other's pics along with some clear statement like "this image borrowed from (site and/or author) and posted here for discussion purposes only", which both proclaims the intent of use and disavows any claim to ownership by the re-poster.

IF someone does NOT want a picture he/she posted on a public-access site to be copied and re-posted elsewhere, he/she may copyright the pic, and/or may utilize some copy-protection device. At the least, they may well post a request "BEFORE the fact" (when initially posting the pic) that "folks NOT copy and use this image for any purpose without getting my permission first". Probably doesn't have much "official" or "legal" weight among many - but I would abide by this (but may carefully note this when discussing the elsewhere-posted image as being a resource that is not fully-available for copy-and-store for later review.)

IF no "before the fact" measures were taken, the posted picture is available, IMO, as long as one also posts the disclaimer to ownership of it.

Just my opinion and reflection on this issue, for what very little it is worth!

Bob